B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ALL these four appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment, as all of them are preferred against the judgment dated 3rd August, 1999 in SC no. 333 of 1997 on the file of the learned iv Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. A1 to A5 are the appellants in this batch of criminal appeals. ( 2 ) THE learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge found all the appellants herein guilty of the charge punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the code ), and accordingly convicted them and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. The conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge are under challenge. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 28-1-1993 at about 6-50 p. m. , A1 to A4 armed with knives entered into the office of pw1 functioning under the name and style of M/s. Priya Instruments and Chemicals limited, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, hyderabad, and threatened PWs. 1 and 2 with knives and committed theft of a gold chain, gold ring and Titan wrist watch from pw1, and a gold ring and a Citizen watch from PW2 and absconded from the scene of offence. On receipt of the complaint from pw1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta registered a case in Crime No. 53 of 1993 under Section 392 of the Code and issued first Information Report. ( 4 ) ON the intervening night of 22/23-9-1996, the appellants herein were arrested at Padmarao Nagar Colony by PW9 while they were trying to commit the dacoity. It is the case of the prosecution that on interrogation of the appellants, properties were seized from the appellants belonging to PWs 1 and 2. A gold ring MO1 was seized from A5 belonging to PW1; a Citizen watch - MO4 was seized from A2 and a titan wrist watch - MO3 was seized from a1. At the instance of A3, a gold chain - mo2 was recovered from PW5 (Receiver) under seizure report Ex. P6. It is the case of the prosecution that A5 who is an exemployee of M/s. Priya Instruments and chemicals Limited, hatched a plan along with A1 to A4 to commit the offence. At the instance of A3, a gold chain - mo2 was recovered from PW5 (Receiver) under seizure report Ex. P6. It is the case of the prosecution that A5 who is an exemployee of M/s. Priya Instruments and chemicals Limited, hatched a plan along with A1 to A4 to commit the offence. He sent A1 to A4 inside, while he stood at a distance to keep watch on the passersby. PWs. 7 and 9 having investigated the case, filed the charge-sheet against the appellants herein for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Code. ( 5 ) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P6. MOs. 1 to 4 were marked. ( 6 ) LEARNED IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, found all the appellants herein guilty of the charge punishable under Section 395 of the Code and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. ( 7 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/a2 in Crl. A. No. 1542 of 1999 made submissions on behalf of all the appellants. The appellants herein shall be referred to as arrayed in the Sessions case for the sake of convenience. ( 8 ) THE learned senior Counsel submits that the evidence of PW2 is totally worthless as he has identified A1 to A4 in the Court for the first time on 30th March, 1999, after a long lapse of the occurrence. It is also submitted by the learned senior Counsel that the test identification parade is vitiated, as it was held after a long lapse of time. It is further submitted that A5 is subsequently implicated in order to get the Section 395 attracted. The whole prosecution story about the involvement of the appellants herein is highly doubtful according to the learned senior Counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from legal or factual infirmities warranting any interference of this Court. ( 9 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The whole prosecution story about the involvement of the appellants herein is highly doubtful according to the learned senior Counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from legal or factual infirmities warranting any interference of this Court. ( 9 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The whole case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 28-1-1993 at 6-50 p. m. , in the office of PW1. It is in the evidence of PW1 that A2 to A4 came along with another offender. A5 is ex-employee of his office. A5 was standing outside the office. A2 to A4 came inside the office and bolted the door from inside. All the four offenders having entered the office took out the knives. A2 placed knife point on his neck. A4 placed knife on the neck of his friend - PW2. A2 removed the gold chain - MO2 from his neck, and also MO3 - wrist watch. A2 is also stated to have removed MO1 - gold ring. He further states that A4 snatched a gold ring and watch - mo4 from PW2. PWs. 1 and 2 were confined in the bathroom and they have forcibly opened the same. They found the entrance door was also bolted from outside and one Laxmana Reddy of nearby office came and opened the door. Ex. P1 is the complaint lodged by him. In Ex. P1-complaint, there is no mention of A5. admittedly A5 is stated to be an ex-employee of the office. If A5 was really present, nothing prevented pw1 to reveal at least his name if he has seen A5 was standing outside the office premises. Obviously, A5 is implicated subsequently in order to get the offence under Section 395 of the Code attracted. There is no explanation forthcoming whatsoever from the prosecution as to why the name of A5 could not be mentioned by PW1 in Ex. P1. It is also required to notice that no descriptive particulars of any of the accused herein were given in Ex. P1 by PW1. Descriptive particulars of any of the accused were not given even to the police when he was examined. Nor the descriptive particulars of MOs. 1 to 3 were given by him. P1. It is also required to notice that no descriptive particulars of any of the accused herein were given in Ex. P1 by PW1. Descriptive particulars of any of the accused were not given even to the police when he was examined. Nor the descriptive particulars of MOs. 1 to 3 were given by him. It is admitted by him in the cross-examination that till the test identification parade was conducted, he did not know about the recovery of the property by the police. He identified the property - MOs. 1 to 3 only in the Court during the course of giving evidence on 24th March, 1999. ( 10 ) PW2 happens to be a friend of PW1. He is a resident of Madurai, Tamil nadu State. He came to see his friend- pw1. In his evidence, he states that four offenders armed with knives entered inside the office and bolted the door from inside. A4 raised knife point on his neck and under threat, they snatched his ring and Citizen watch - MO4. PW1 was also threatened at the point of knife and MOs. 1 to 3 were taken from his person. He along with PW1 were confined in the toilet and the door was bolted from outside, but they have forcibly opened the door and came out. Somebody opened the door. He along with pw1 went to the Police Station where pw1 lodged Ex. P1. His statement was recorded. It is in his evidence that at the time of offence, one more offender was standing outside the office and he cannot identify him. He identified A1 to A4 for the first time during the course of his evidence on 30th March, 1999. PW2 did not participate in the test identification parade. This is all the evidence of the so-called victims. ( 11 ) THE evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 is not material. PW5 is stated to be the receiver of the gold chain - MO2. PW5 in his evidence states that A3 gave gold chain to him for the purpose of selling some time in march or April, 1993. He paid Rs. 8,000/- to A3. In the year 1996, police came along with A3 and seized MO2 - gold chain under the seizure proceedings. He admitted that there is no entry whatsoever to show that he purchased MO2 - gold chain from A3. He paid Rs. 8,000/- to A3. In the year 1996, police came along with A3 and seized MO2 - gold chain under the seizure proceedings. He admitted that there is no entry whatsoever to show that he purchased MO2 - gold chain from A3. He purchased the gold chain from A3 at Gulzar House in the shop of his father. ( 12 ) THE evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 is to the following effect: That the incident took place on 28-1-1993 at 6-50 p. m. PW 1 lost MOs. 1 to 3. There was no identification of MOs. l to 3 at any point of time prior to PW1 gave his evidence on 24-3-1999 in the Court. No specific features of MOs. l to 3 were given by PW1 either in the complaint or even in his evidence. The evidence of PW1 was recorded on 24th March, 1999, and the evidence of PW2 was recorded on 30th March, 1999. PW1 of course identified A2 to A5 in the test identification parade held on 19-10-1996. The test identification parade itself was held after more than 31/2 years. It is also required to notice that PW6 - XXII Metropolitan magistrate stated in her evidence that the accused complained to her that they were kept in the Police Station and were shown to PW1 to facilitate him to identify the accused in the identification parade. PW2 did not participate in the test identification parade. He straight away identified A1 to a4 in the Court on 30th March, 1999. Admittedly, PW2 has not seen A1 to A4 prior to the incident on 28-1-1993 at any point of time, nor subsequently thereafter till his statement was recorded in the court on 30th March, 1999. It is absolutely impossible to believe that PW2 could have identified A1 to A4 after a lapse of six long years. I find it very difficult to accept the evidence of PW2. ( 13 ) EVEN the evidence of PW1 and his identification of A2 to A5 in the test identification parade are highly doubtful. In Ex. P1, PW1 stated that there were only four offenders. If really, A5 participated in the crime by waiting outside the office premises, nothing prevented PW1 to give at least his name in Ex. P1. The test identification parade itself was held on 19-10-1996 after a period of more than three years. In Ex. P1, PW1 stated that there were only four offenders. If really, A5 participated in the crime by waiting outside the office premises, nothing prevented PW1 to give at least his name in Ex. P1. The test identification parade itself was held on 19-10-1996 after a period of more than three years. In Kanan v. State of Kerala, air 1979 SC 1127 , it is observed by the supreme Court that "where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous test identification parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no test identification parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. " ( 14 ) IN such view of the matter, it would be absolutely unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW2 for whatever purposes. ( 15 ) IN Antar Singh v. State of M. P. , AIR 1979 SC 1188 , the Supreme Court observed that "the prosecution is bound to give proper explanation as to why the test identification parade could not be promptly conducted for identifying the accused. " ( 16 ) IN the instant case, the accused were arrested on the intervening night of 22/23-9-1996. Test identification parade was held on 19-10-1996. At any rate, test identification parade was held, during which PW1 identified A2 to A5 after a long lapse of more than three years. The accused specifically complained to the learned magistrate during the test identification parade that they were shown to PW1 in the Police Station by the police. There is no evidence whatsoever let in by the prosecution to show that there was no possibility of the accused being shown to pw1 before the test identification parade. The vital link is missing. For all the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 about the identification of the accused herein becomes highly doubtful, and I am not willing to place any reliance upon their evidence. The vital link is missing. For all the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 about the identification of the accused herein becomes highly doubtful, and I am not willing to place any reliance upon their evidence. ( 17 ) WHAT remains is about the recoveries. MOs. 1 to 3 were identified by PW1 for the first time in the Court. PW2 identified the wrist watch - MO4 for the first time in the Court. PW5 s evidence about his receiving MO2 - gold chain from A3 is also highly doubtful. According to PW5, gold chain was sold some time in the month of March, 1993. It is rather difficult to accept that the gold chain remained with him for a period of more than three years. After all, he is a businessman and received the same from a3 for the purpose of selling the same. That apart, the description of MOs. 1 to 4 is not given by PW1 in Ex. P1. There is no description given about MOs. l to 4 either by PW1 or PW2 even during the course of their evidence in the Court. MOs. 3 and 4 are wrist watches made by standard companies. No specific or special features about them are mentioned by PWs. 1 and 2. Even with regard to MOs. l and 2, no specific features are mentioned. Of course, weight of MO2 was given in Ex. P1 by pw1, but the same was not even weighed and found to be of the same weight as the one given by PW1 in Ex. P1. Another interesting aspect to notice is that after the seizure, there was no test identification of material objects in the presence of any mediator. PWs. 1 and 2 identified MOs. 1 to 4 for the first time in the Court. No reason or explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the test identification could not be held of material objects. ( 18 ) YET another aspect is that PW9 is stated to have seized gold ring - MO1 and watch - MO4 from the possession of A5 and gold chain - MO2 at the instance of a3 from the possession of PW5. It is absolutely impossible to believe that A5 was wearing MO1 gold ring and also MO4 - watch having committed theft somewhere in the month of January, 1993. It is absolutely impossible to believe that A5 was wearing MO1 gold ring and also MO4 - watch having committed theft somewhere in the month of January, 1993. The seizure is stated to be on 23rd September, 1996 in the presence of PW8. In the circumstances, i find it difficult to accept that MOs. 1, 3 and 4 were seized from the person of the accused on 22/23-9-1996. I have already expressed my view about the recovery of mo2 gold chain from PW5. The evidence of PW5 is absolutely unbelievable. ( 19 ) THUS, there is no evidence let in by the prosecution to establish the charge against the appellants. The incident may have happened on 28-1-1993 at 6-50 p. m. during which PWs. 1 and 2 may have lost their valuables. But, there is absolutely nothing to connect the appellants herein to the said offence. The appellants are not at all identified by any of the witnesses. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in regard to identification of the appellants herein is highly doubtful. It is also highly doubtful that the stolen valuables are MOs. 1 to 4. It is also doubtful as to whether those MOs. 1 to 4 at all were recovered from the appellants herein. ( 20 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, I find it very difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the sentence imposed upon them is also set aside. The appellants shall be forthwith set free if they are not required in connection with any other case. ( 21 ) THE appeals are accordingly allowed.