JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge Baran bearing Sessions Case No. 179/82 and 93/83. They were found guilty under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated Feb. 4, 1986, present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief resume of the facts is that informant Parma Ram instituted FIR with the Police Station Atru on April 8, 1982 against six seven unknown persons stating therein that at about 12.30 a.m. when he, Joga Ram, Prem Das, Mangi Das, Tulsi Das and other women were sleeping inside and outside of their hutment's at a distance of nearly half a mile from village two persons came from the side of the village and abusively said as to where were their goats and inflicted two lathi blows on the person of informant, thereafter they started snatching the ornaments of the woman folk. Companions also arrived there armed with lathies and started beating those persons who were sleeping outside their hutment's as also the women folk who were sleeping inside and looted the ornaments 'Kankati' Kandora and Kariya of women folk. Having given bearing to them and their womenfolk and having looted their ornaments the miscreants run away from there. The PS. Atru registered a case under section 395/397 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid and the case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge Baran. 4. Learned trial court framed charges under sections 395, 397 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and tendered various documents in evidence. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. the appellants denied all allegations. Learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge under section 120 B IPC but convicted them as indicated hereinabove. 5. Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. the appellants denied all allegations. Learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge under section 120 B IPC but convicted them as indicated hereinabove. 5. Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries sustained by Smt. Kamla, Smt. Kastoor Bai, Tulsi Das, Manak Das, Smt. Mohini Bai, Ram Das and Joga Ram were simple in nature and had been caused by blunt weapon and there is nothing on record to show that deadly weapons were used by the miscreants for causing death or grievous hurt to any person. Therefore conviction of the appellants under Sections 397 IPC is wholly illegal. It was further urged that the appellants were arrested on May 13, 1982, May 18, 1982 and May 24, 1982 whereas their Identification parade was held on July 20, 1982 more than two months after their arrest. During this period the appellants were taken to the courts and here and there many a times and they were shown to the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the identification parade was completely a farce. The ornaments alleged to belong to the womenfolk do not have distinctive marks and the womenfolk did not appear to identify those ornaments. The appellants were arrested in another case and they were implicated in the instant case. Reliance was placed on Chhatra and others v. State of Raj. (RLR 1990 (1) page 489) . 6. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Poddar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that there is ample evidence on record against the appellants and they have been rightly convicted. 7. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 8. The point for consideration is whether the appellants were amongst those who had committed the offence. Admittedly, the appellants were arrested in the month of May 1982 whereas their identification parade was arranged on July 20. 1982 more than two months after their arrest. I have closely scrutinised the statement of Investigating Officer Sohan Singh (PW 13). He deposed that the appellants were taken in custody on May 13, 1982 but he did not say that the appellants were kept 'ba parda' from May 13, 1982 till they had been sent to judicial custody. 1982 more than two months after their arrest. I have closely scrutinised the statement of Investigating Officer Sohan Singh (PW 13). He deposed that the appellants were taken in custody on May 13, 1982 but he did not say that the appellants were kept 'ba parda' from May 13, 1982 till they had been sent to judicial custody. There is no evidence on record to establish that when the appellants were produced before the court by the Jail authorities they had, their faces covered. Shri Giriraj Prasad Gupta (PW 7) who at the relevant time was Magistrate conducted identification parade. He stated in his cross examination that the appellants had told him that they were shown to the witnesses at the police station. The delay of two months in arranging identification parade has not been explained by the prosecution. In Jagan Nath v. State of Rajasthan (1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 196) the identification parade was arranged nearly after one month of the arrest. The delay was not explained and there was no corroborative evidence to support the guilt of the accused. This court under those circumstances acquitted the accused. 9. In the case on hand SHO Sohan Singh (PW 13) stated that the appellants were arrested in another case and the ornaments recovered from them in another case were sealed. Thereafter they were taken in police custody in the instant case. In view of this statement the recovery of ornaments at the instance of appellants becomes doubtful more so when there is no distinctive marks over the ornaments and women folk did not appear to identify them. 10. Indisputably, the incident had taken place in the darkness of night at 12.30 a.m. and arranging of identification parade after two months of the arrest of the appellants without explaining the delay is also a fact which creates doubt in the prosecution story. Such an identification does not dispute confidence. It was the duty of the prosecution to establish that the appellants were kept 'Ba Parda' before their identification. 11. The prosecution thus, in my view, has not established the charges under section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants' identification is false. The recovery, of ornaments has not been proved at the instance of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the injuries sustained by the witnesses were not caused by deadly weapons. The appellants' identification is false. The recovery, of ornaments has not been proved at the instance of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the injuries sustained by the witnesses were not caused by deadly weapons. The incident has taken place in the darkness of night. The accused appellants were arrested in another case and had been taken to the custody by the police in the instant case. In view of the defective investigation, the conviction of the appellants under sections 395 and 397 IPC cannot be sustained. 12. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. is set-aside and they are acquitted from the offences under sections 395 and 397 IPC. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. They need not surrender. The record of the case be sent forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******