Judgment M. A. A. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 374, Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-3-1998 whereby the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Distt. Alwar) held the appellant Sugreev Singh guilty of the offence under Section 395, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in case of default of making payment of fine further undergo S. I. for six months. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that during the intervening night of 18-19 February, 1996 PW/1 Smt. Vimla Devi, her husband PW /2 Pooran Mal and other members of their family were sleeping in their residential house situated at Khedli District Alwar. It is alleged that the present appellant alongwith four others jumped into the said house and whereas four of the miscreants entered into a room wherein the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were sleeping, one of them remained standing in the Chauk of the house. The miscreants started looting the property of the prosecution witnesses after putting them in fear of incident death or causing grievous hurt to them. In the process of looting they are stated to have caused some injuries to the prosecution witnesses. After having looted the prosecution witnesses of their valuable ornaments, jewellery etc. the miscreants escaped. The report of the incident was lodged by PW /2 Pooran Mal at 2. 00 a. m. in the same night with Police Station Khedli whereat Crime No. 37/96 under Sections 395/397 was registered. ( 3 ) IN the course of investigation the present appellant, besides three others, was arrested. He was put before a Test Identification Parade where he is stated to have been identified by two star witnesses PW /1 Smt. Vimla and PW /2 Pooran Mal. It is further alleged that on an information given by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a pair of PAIJEB was recovered from his possession and the same was got identified by the witnesses as stolen property of the case. After trying the present appellant for the offence under Section 395 IPC, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above. After trying the present appellant for the offence under Section 395 IPC, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the evidence brought by the prosecution on the records of the case did not prove the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the testimony of PW /1 Smt. Vimla and PW /2 Pooran Mal has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court inasmuch as that the learned trial Judge did not take into account the fact that the appellant used to work at liquor shop which was in front of the house of PW /2 Pooran Mal at Khedli and both the witnesses knew him from before. It was also pointed out that the learned trial Judge itself disbelieved the evidence relating to the recovery of the stolen property at the instance of the present appellant and, therefore, the only evidence which allegedly incriminated the present appellant was that of Identification Parade of his person. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the testimony of PW/1 Smt. Vimla and PW/2 Shri Pooran Mal did not inspire confidence. It was pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 23-7-1996 from his village in the District of Agra (U. P) vide Ex. P14 and thereafter got identified by the witnesses at the police station and thereafter he was sent to Jail on 24-4-1996. It was submitted that the evidence of identification of the person of the appellant was highly doubtful and, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted in the present case. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned P. P. urged that Smt. Vimla being a house lady is not expected to know the persons working at the liquor shop, therefore, her testimony can not be discarded. It was further submitted that alongwith the evidence relating to the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of or at the instance of the present appellant was not believed by the Trial Court but such evidence was not relevant to the appreciation of the evidence of identification of his person. It was further submitted that alongwith the evidence relating to the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of or at the instance of the present appellant was not believed by the Trial Court but such evidence was not relevant to the appreciation of the evidence of identification of his person. It was submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record of the case to conclusively hold that an offence of the nature stated by the prosecution had certainly taken place at the house of PW/2 Pooran Mal and that fact stood fully proved not only from the behaviour of the witnesses in reporting the evident to the police in the same night but also from the injuries found on their person, noticed after the occurrence. ( 6 ) I have given with full consideration to the submission advanced before me and have examined the record of the lower court. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that during the unfortunate night an armed dacoity had taken place at the house of PW /2 Pooran Mal. Both husband and wife PW /1 Vimla and PW/2 Pooran Mal were beaten by the miscreants and soon after the occurrence injuries were noticed on their person. The incident was reported by PW /2 Pooran Mal within half hour after its having taken place. Thus the conduct and behaviour of the prosecution witnesses fully established the commission of an offence of the nature punishable under Section 395, IPC. ( 8 ) THE pertinent question which however arise for consideration is whether the present appellant was one of the miscreants. In this behalf the only evidence which incriminated him consists of the testimony of PW /1 Smt. Vimla and PW /2 Pooran Mal. The substance of their testimony is that it was a dark night and they were sleeping inside the room; that four miscreants entered into room and started robbing them; that one of their colleag remained standing in the chauk of the house: that on a protest made to them the miscreants had beaten both of them and looted their property. Both the witnesses have stated that the person standing in the chauk was the present appellant. Both of them are stated to have correctly identified the present appellant at the Test Identification Parade held in the course of investigation as being one of the 5 dacoits. Both the witnesses have stated that the person standing in the chauk was the present appellant. Both of them are stated to have correctly identified the present appellant at the Test Identification Parade held in the course of investigation as being one of the 5 dacoits. The question arise as to whether this evidence of the witnesses may be expected. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant referred to the statement of both these witnesses as recorded in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. It was pointed out that both the witnesses had categorically stated in their police statements that they could not identify the person standing in the chauk. But in their statement recorded at the trial of the appellant both of them stated that they had identified the person standing in the chauk. Thus, there is material contradiction in their testimony on a material point in the case which substantially diminishes the value of their testimony. ( 10 ) THE evidence of identification by the witnesses of the accused at the trial makes substantive evidence in the case. The evidence of test identification obtained through test identification parade held in the course of investigation is of corroborative value. But as the position of law is the identification of the accused by the witnesses at the trial looses its significance and value if it is not preceded by evidence of identification of the accused by him at the identification parade held in the course of investigation. In the instant case both the witnesses appeared to have stated in the course of investigation that they could not identify the person standing the Chauk. Their such version appears to be correct for the obvious reason that it was a dark night of month of February and witnesses must have naturally sleeping inside the room. It is in evidence that a zero watt bulb was burning in the living room and a zero watt bulb was burning in the chauk of the house also. No doubt a person may be got identified in that quantum of light but if a person has been placed under threat of death, he may not reasonably look at a miscreants for such a long time as to remember his special or specific features which may help him to recall and re-collect his identity. No doubt a person may be got identified in that quantum of light but if a person has been placed under threat of death, he may not reasonably look at a miscreants for such a long time as to remember his special or specific features which may help him to recall and re-collect his identity. In the present case, it is also relevant to note that the appellant used to work at a liquor shop which was situated in front of the house of Pooran Mal. It would have been, most natural for the appellant to have tried to conceal his identity while committing offence like dacoity in the house of a person, who lived just in front of place of his business. There is no evidence that the present appellant had tried to conceal his identity from the witnesses by muffling his face with some cloth. The identification of the appellant by the two witnesses in the court at the time of recording their statement lost its probative value for the reason that they have categorically stated in their statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. marked DW /1 Vijay Singh and DW /2 Kalyan Singh that they could not identify the person who was standing in the chauk of the house. The value of their testimony is further diminished by the fact that the appellant were known to, them from before. Had the appellant been one of the members of the dacoits, the witnesses could have named him with reference to the place of his business. Since the appellant was arrested on 23-7-1996 and thereafter he was kept at the police station and sent to jail on 24- Too 1996, there was good opportunity for the witnesses to see him at the police station. ( 11 ) THE result of the above discussion is that the prosecution had failed to bring reliable and convenient evidence to bring the charge home to the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment and order are hereby set - aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence 395, IPC. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any, other case. The amount of fine, if realised, be returned to the accused. Appeal allowed. .