JUDGMENT B.P Singh & D.P.S. Choudhary, JJ. - The three appellants in this appeal were put up for trial before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, XI, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 109/86, charged of offences under sections 147, 302/149, 307/149 and 309/149 I.P.C. By his judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1 S89, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Munger, has found the appellants guilty and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/149 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under section 379/149 and 1½ years rigorous imprisonment under section 147 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21st April 1985, Ram Balak Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh were getting their crop hervested in the field of Ram Balak Singh at Konital. At about 12 noon large number of persons numbering about 40-50 came over the field armed with Lathi, Pharsa and Garasa etc. and started assaulting the aforesaid two persons and their men. As a result of the assault, Ram Balak Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh died and two persons namely, Ashok Kumar P.W.6 and Ram Sarup Darhi, (P.W.10) were injured. The fardbeyan was lodged at the place of occurrence itself at 8.10 p.m., when the police arrived on getting a report about the incident. The fardbeyan of P.W.6, Ashok Kumar was recorded by Mohd. Husnain, P.W.11 Officer-Incharge of Sarahia Police Station. 3. In the fardbeyan, the informant, P. W.6 stated that his brother-in-law, Ram Balak Singh, had hired a thrasher of Vidya Sagar Singh with a view to harvest khesari crop. The informant was also assisting him in the 'khalihan'. Apart from Ram Balak Singh, and Vidya Sagar Singh, others were also working with him, namely, Ram Sarup (P.W.10), and Ramdeo Singh (not examined). Five mazdoors of village Auta were also working with them. Earlier in the morning, there was some dispute about the payment of wages between the mazdoors and his brother-in-law, Ram Salak Singh. At about 9 a.m. two of the mazdoor went away on the pretext that they were suffering from stomach-ache. At about 12 noon they came back along with 40-50 persons all belonging to Mushar Community. They were armed with lathi, Bhala, Farsa, Khanti etc. Ram Balak Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh were assaulted till they died. At about 9 a.m. two of the mazdoor went away on the pretext that they were suffering from stomach-ache. At about 12 noon they came back along with 40-50 persons all belonging to Mushar Community. They were armed with lathi, Bhala, Farsa, Khanti etc. Ram Balak Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh were assaulted till they died. The informant was also assaulted but he closed his eyes and pretended as if he was dead and thus taking him to be dead the appellants spared him. Ram Sarup, P.W. 10 was also assaulted by the appellants, but he managed to escape. The assailants also carried away the harvested crop. The informant did not know the names of the assailants, but claimed that he could identify them if they were shown to him. It would thus appear that the informant P.W.5 though an eye witness was unable to name any of the assailants because they were not known to him by name. He however, claimed that he could identify them, if they were shown to him. 4. The prosecution has examined several witnesses to prove its case. P.W.3, Markenday Singh is the brother of Vidya Sagar Singh, the deceased. In course of his deposition, he did not support the prosecution case and went to the extent of saying that he had not even gone to the place of occurrence. The witness was declared hostile. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 claimed that they came to know about the incident from Ramdeo, servant of Ram Balak Singh. It was Ramdeo who told them at about 5 in the evening that an occurrence had taken place in which Ram Balak Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh had been killed by large number of assailants. They claimed to have informed the police about the occurrence. Ramdeo, who had informed these witnesses about the occurrence has not been examined as an eye witness. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 therefore, is not of much assistance to the prosecution. 5. P.W.5, Ashok Kumar is the informant. Unfortunately, this witness has also been declared hostile. According to this witness, he had gone to 'Khalihan' where thrashing was going on. He saw that about 30 persons came and mounted an assault on the persons in the field with Pharsa and other weapons. He was also assaulted and he became unconscious. 5. P.W.5, Ashok Kumar is the informant. Unfortunately, this witness has also been declared hostile. According to this witness, he had gone to 'Khalihan' where thrashing was going on. He saw that about 30 persons came and mounted an assault on the persons in the field with Pharsa and other weapons. He was also assaulted and he became unconscious. He did not recognise anyone and when he gained consciousness, he found himself in the Patna Medical College Hospital. The testimony of P. W.5 is also not of much assistance to the prosecution. In any case, there is nothing in his evidence which could be used against the appellants. PWs. 8 and 9 were tendered for cross-examination but they have not stated anything worth, noticing. P.W.10, Ram Sarup Darhi, is an eye witness. His name finds mentioned in the F.I.R. He has supported the prosecution case as regards the manner of occurrence. But this witness also did not know the names of the assailants. He, however, claimed that he could identify them. He had identified the three appellants in this appeal, in the T.I. Parade. 6. P. Ws. 11 and 12 are the Investigating Officer and the doctor respectively and nothing much turns on their evidence. P.W.1, Bireshwar Jha Pravir, was the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the two T.I. Parades one on 15.6.1985 and the other on 29.4.85. He has deposed to the effect that under the orders of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, he had held the T.I. Parade on 15.6.85 in which suspect Bahadur Manjhee, appellant no.3 was put up for identification. The witness who was called to identify this suspect was Ram Sarup Darhi, P.W.10. He has further stated that Ram Sarup Darhi, P. W.10 correctly identified Bahadur Manjhee, appellant no.3. He has proved the T.I. Chart which was marked as Ext. I. 7. Earlier on 29.4.85, he conducted the T.I. Parade in which appellants Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee were put up for identification by Ramdeo Singh and Ramsarup Darhi. The other suspects were also put up for identification. However, Ramdeo Singh failed to identify any of the suspects. Ram Sarup Darhi identified Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee, appellants 1 and 2 in this appeal. He proved the T.I. Chart which was marked as Ext. 1/1. The other suspects were also put up for identification. However, Ramdeo Singh failed to identify any of the suspects. Ram Sarup Darhi identified Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee, appellants 1 and 2 in this appeal. He proved the T.I. Chart which was marked as Ext. 1/1. In this cross-examination, he stated that Ram Sarup Darhi had identified Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee by their parentage and address and this he has written in the T.I. Chart. They had not stated any thing about the overt acts committed by the suspects. When questioned by the Court about the identification of appellant Bahadur Manjhee, the witness stated that he did not remember whether the identifying witness had identified Bahadur Manjhee by his parentage and address. This he has stated on the basis of what was recorded in the T.I. Chart. 8. The evidence that connects the appellants with the crime is indeed namely, identification of the appellants by P.W.10 in the T.I. Parade, held on two dates. So far appellants 1 and 2 are concerned, there is clear statement of the Magistrate conducting the T.I. Parade that they have been identified by their parentage and address. The T.I. Chart shows that apart from the names of these two appellants, their father's name and their village address has also been recorded in the T.I. Chart. Counsel for the State submitted that in course of his deposition, P.W. 10 has asserted that he did not know the names of these two appellants. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.10 to suggest that he had disclosed the parentage and address of appellants 1 and 2 while identifying them in the T.I. Parade. In our view, it was not necessary for the defence to put these questions to P.W.10 because P.W.1 who conducted the T.I. Parade himself stated that P.W.10 had identified appellants nos. 1 and 2 giving out their parentage and address. The prosecution evidence itself establishes the fact that the identifying witness knew the parentage and address of the suspect put up for identification. Once it is so found, the evidence by way of identification in the T.I. Parade loses its value. 1 and 2 giving out their parentage and address. The prosecution evidence itself establishes the fact that the identifying witness knew the parentage and address of the suspect put up for identification. Once it is so found, the evidence by way of identification in the T.I. Parade loses its value. So far as the identification of appellant no.3 Bahadur Manjhee in the T.I. Parade by P.W.10 is concerned, there is no infirmity regarding his identification and, therefore, identification of this appellant in the court by P.W.10 is corroborated by his identification in the T.I. Parade. Since the prosecution evidence itself establishes the fact that the identifying witness P.W.10 knew the parentage and village address of appellant nos. 1 and 2, ho value can be attached to the identification of these two appellants by P.W.10 in the T.I. Parade. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to place implicit reliance upon the identification of these two appellants by P.W.10 in court only. We, therefore, allow this appeal in so far as appellant nos. 1 and 2, Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee are concerned, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The appeal of appellant no.3, Bahadur Manjhee fails. Appellant nos. 1 and 2, Sitaram Manjhee and Jagarnath Manjhee are accordingly directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. So far appellant no.3, Bahadur Manjhee is concerned, the Jail authorities will calculate the sentence already undergone by him. 10. Sri Anil Singh, Advocate, has rendered useful assistance to the Court. He was appointed amicus curiae to assist the court. We direct that he shall be paid by the State a sum of Rs. 1000/- by way of fee for assisting the court in this appeal. This order shall be communicated to the Patna High Court, Legal Aid Committee, for necessary action regarding payment of fee.