JUDGMENT 1. -Appellant-Nasra faced trial for offence under section 395 IPC before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali and has been convicted for the same and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also faced trial under section 148 IPC, was convicted for the same and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. It was ordered that substantive sentences under both the offences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, Sawaram reported to Station House Officer, Nana (District Pali) on 15.8.1998 that on I 4.g. 1998 at about 12 O'clock he was grazing his cattle near Khetarli river. Suddenly eight persons, whose faces were covered, came there armed with la this and kulharis. Two persons suddenly attacked on him and fell down. They tied him with a tree. Two persons, out of them, stood before him and then rest of them took away his animals who were 38 goats and 40 sheep. Those persons, who were standing, left him after three hours. Thereafter he untied himself, came on the road and narrated the story to Mangal Singh. Heera son of Venaji was also with him and who also met the same treatment. On this report, a case under sections 382, 147. 148, 342 & 323 IPC was registered and investigated. Thereafter challan was submitted against number of persons who faced trial in Sessions Case No. 48/89 and their cases were decided separately on 31.10.1995 and 31. i .1997. When the present appellant was arrested, he was challaned and his case was committed to the Sessions Judge. Prosecution examined PW I Sawaram, PW 2 Heera, PW 3 Moti and PW 4 Bhanwar Singh in support of its case. Then the accused-appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, acquitted Nasra from the charges of Sections 342, 323, 411 & 414 IPC but convicted and sentenced him for offences under sections 148 & 395 IPC as stated above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant. He submitted that no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation and that there is no evidence worth the name to connect the appellant with the crime. According to him, as such, learned Sessions Judge committed error in convicting the appellant. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor was not able to support the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He had to admit that there is no incriminating evidence against the appellant. 6. The first and foremost question in this case is whether the appellant was identified by anyone of the two witnesses who are said to be victims. They are PW 1 Sawarm and PW 2 Heera. Sawaram is the person who lodged the first information report. He had not named anybody in the first information report. He stated during the trial that six or seven persons came with covered faces. They were armed with la this and kulharis. He was given beatings and then he was tied with a tree. His animals were taken away. Two persons remained standing. They released him after four hours and then his brother's son untied him. This version is itself against the first information report. In the first information report Ex. P/1 he stated he had himself untied. But in the statement in Court he stated that it was his brother's son who untied him. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not identify the persons who were assailants. He admitted that no test identification parade was conducted. He admitted that the faces of the persons were covered and only their eyes were visible. He stated that he had become unconscious immediately after the incident and remained so up to 5.00 p.m. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 10.00 a.m. and the witness was unconscious up to 5.00 p.m. as per his statement. But this is against the first information report. He nowhere mentioned in the first information report that he had become unconscious. Instead he had stated that after the assailants left, he untied himself and then went on the road and narrated the incident to Mangal Singh. But this is against the first information report. He nowhere mentioned in the first information report that he had become unconscious. Instead he had stated that after the assailants left, he untied himself and then went on the road and narrated the incident to Mangal Singh. All said and done, it is clear from his statement that no test identification parade was conducted and it was not possible for the witness to identify the appellant. 7. PW 2 Heera is another victim. He stated that he was given beatings and then he became unconscious. He stated that he was also tied and then two persons remained present and the others took away the animals. He admitted in the cross-examination that all the persons had covered their faces and it is admitted that no test identification parade was conducted and hence the identification of the appellant in the Court is of no assistance to the prosecution. The settled law is that if a witness does not know an accused from before, test identification parade is a method to ascertain identity of an accused during trial. If it is not conducted, then the Court identification is of no value. The witness admitted in cross-examination that he did notice the appellant at the time of occurrence. It all the more weakens the case of the prosecution. So these two star witnesses of the prosecution are of no help to it. 8. Mangal Singh has not been produced on behalf of the prosecution. There is no recovery of any incriminating material at the instance of the appellant. 9. PW 3 Moti stated that the goats were recovered from a struck near Gogunda and memo was prepared. A truck was also seized and the goats and sheep were handed over to the complainant on supurdginama. Thus no recovery on record to prove that even a lathi was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 10. PW 4 Bhanwar Singh is the Investigating Officer who does not connect the appellant with crime at all. He simply says that it was Sawia who lodged report Ex. P/1 before him and he started investigation, play some part in investigation and then left it to be done by another police officer. The evidence of the prosecution does not connect the appellant with the crime at all. 11. He simply says that it was Sawia who lodged report Ex. P/1 before him and he started investigation, play some part in investigation and then left it to be done by another police officer. The evidence of the prosecution does not connect the appellant with the crime at all. 11. In view of above discussion, the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the appellant. Accused-appellant deserves acquittal. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Accused-appellant-Nasra alias Hanna son of Lala is acquitted from the charges of Sections 395 & 148 1PC. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******