ORDER Bilal Nazki, J. - This appeal has been filed on behalf of four persons who were accused in C.C. No. 17 of 1996 tried by II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. They were charged under Section 394 IPC, convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. They had also been convicted in many other cases and therefore the Court directed that the sentence in the present case and the other cases should run concurrently. They were also fined with Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine they had to suffer one months simple imprisonment. The appellants are in custody from 14th February, 2000. they were not granted bail therefore this appeal has been taken for consideration but of turn. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the charge - sheet in the present matter are that, according to the prosecution during the night of 4th of April, 1995 on the road leading from Parkal to Huzurabad at the shivar of Narsakkapally village age P.Ws. 1 and 2 were proceeding on scooter when accused caught hold of them beat them and robbed P.W. 1 of Rs. 50/-, P.W. 2, was robbed of a gold ring, one Titan Watch and Hs, 500/- in cash, The accused also beat P.Ws. 3 and 6 while they were proceeding in the same load on TVS Cham. P.W. 3 was robbed of Rs. 70/- and one Titan Wrist Watch and P.W. 6 was robbed of Rs. 900/- in cash, P.W. 4 was robbed of allwyn wrist watch and Rs. 1,400/- cash. Complaint was filed by P.W.1 before Sub-Inspector of Police, Parkal. P.W. 1.1 registered a case in Cr. No. 45/95 under Section 394 IPC. Investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, P.W. 11 visited the scene of occurrence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The injured were referred to hospital for treatment. Panchanama was conducted with regard to observations made at the scene of occurrence. On 31-7-1995 the accused were arrested. On appearance before the Court the appellants-accused were charged under Section 394 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led evidence of fourteen witnesses, exhibits 1 to 21 were exhibited by the prosecution. M.O. 1 was also exhibited. Defence did not lead any evidence. The accused were then examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 3. On appearance before the Court the appellants-accused were charged under Section 394 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led evidence of fourteen witnesses, exhibits 1 to 21 were exhibited by the prosecution. M.O. 1 was also exhibited. Defence did not lead any evidence. The accused were then examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 3. It has come in evidence that the witnesses did not know the accused persons before the occurrence. The accused were arrested after about four months of the occurrence. Thereafter the identification parade was carried. The identification parade was carried on 2-9­1995 at Central Prison, Warangal. This identification parade was carried after five months of the occurrence. Although it is true that the witnesses identified the accused in the Court but in view of the fact that the witnesses did not know the accused persons and identification parade was arranged, the identification of the accused persons as those who had committed the offence becomes important. This becomes particularly important in view of the fact that the witnesses deposed in the Court after almost four years of the occurrence. In the light of this fact of the case the evidence of eye - witnesses has to be considered. 4. P.W.1 stated that, about three years four months back he was coming from Parkal to Shenigaram along with some other persons. They were going on a scooter when two persons armed with sticks coming at a distance of 5 or 6 yards came into the focus of the head lights of their scooter, he did not stop the scooter; The said persons beat him with sticks, he fell down after getting an injury in his left eye. The said persons took him to a canal. Two more persons were waiting at the canal. Fifty-five rupees were taken from his pocket and he was thrown in the canal. The other person who was accompanying on his scooter was also beaten with sticks. He got beating on his head. He was also thrown into the canal. His wrist watch, gold ring and purse were snatched. His name is Ramesh and he is L.W. 2. He saw some other persons who were also thrown into the canal. Two persons were guarding them. After some time the accused left the place. He and his friend then left by scooter to a neighbouring village Nadikuda. His wrist watch, gold ring and purse were snatched. His name is Ramesh and he is L.W. 2. He saw some other persons who were also thrown into the canal. Two persons were guarding them. After some time the accused left the place. He and his friend then left by scooter to a neighbouring village Nadikuda. He was taken to Police Station. He gave complaint EX. P-1. The police sent him and the other person to the hospital. His eye got damaged. He was referred to Regional Eye Hospital, Warangal. He was hospitalized for fifteen days. He lost his left eye. He was provided with an artificial eye by the hospital. The incident took place during night at about 9.00 p.m. The police recorded their statement. After six months of incident he was taken for identification of the accused at Central Prison, Warrangal. He identified A1 to 1\4. In cross - examination he stated that he had not mentioned any descriptive particulars of the accused in F.I.R. 5. P.W. 2 also narrated the same story. He was also admitted in hospital for one week. After six months he also went for identification. 6. P.W. 3 stated that, when he was going to Jeelugula on a moped along with his brother Thimpati he was stopped by four persons with weapons and sticks, they were beaten, the accused took them to a canal, tied their hands. Another scooter also came the accused stopped that scooter as well. Two persons on that scooter were also brought to the canal. The accused took Rs. 70/- from him. They also took Rs. 900/- from his brother. He received head injury. One person had lost eye-sight of one eye. After the accused left the place the witness also left. He along with others went to the Government hospital. He further stated that he was taken to the Central Prison Warangal for identification of the accused. He could not identify the accused persons as according to him he was threatened by them, but he identified A1 and A2 in the Court. 7. P.W. 4 stated that he was returning from Parkal after witnessing a picture. At about 9.30 p.m. four persons came armed with sticks and beat him. They took Rs. 1.400/-from him, they also took one wrist watch from him. He received injuries on his head. 7. P.W. 4 stated that he was returning from Parkal after witnessing a picture. At about 9.30 p.m. four persons came armed with sticks and beat him. They took Rs. 1.400/-from him, they also took one wrist watch from him. He received injuries on his head. After the accused left, he went to the police station, orally reported the matter to the police the police reduced his report to writing. He was in hospital for four days. He told the police that he would identify the accused. But, when he went for identification he did not identify the accused because he got frightened. Then he stated that if the accused were shown to him he would identify them. But in the open Court he could not identify any of the accused, He further stated that he could not identify the accused because he had seen them at such a time when it was dark in the night. 8. These are the only witnesses examined with regard to the identification of the accused persons. In this case identification and recovery becomes important. If it is established that the accused were not identified then the prosecution would have to rely on the recovery and if recovery also becomes doubtful then the accused would get benefit of doubt. Therefore the statement of the witnesses 1 to 4 has to be examined for the purpose of seeing whether they were able to identify the accused. It must be kept in mind that the incident took place sometime between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30. p.m. in the night on the road - side and from the road the witnesses were taken to a canal. No witness has stated that there was any arrangement of light. The witnesses had not seen the accused before the incident. Therefore, it is highly improbable that they could identify the accused persons. One of the witnesses has categorically stated that he could not identify them even in the Court because it was dark in the night then he had seen them at the time of occurrence. Other witnesses have however identified, them in the Court. But, this becomes highly suspicious in view of what had happened during the identification parade. One of the witnesses has categorically stated that he could not identify them even in the Court because it was dark in the night then he had seen them at the time of occurrence. Other witnesses have however identified, them in the Court. But, this becomes highly suspicious in view of what had happened during the identification parade. The identification parade had been carried only after five months of the incident the statement in the Court was recorded almost 3-1/2 years of the incident if the witnesses failed to identify the accused in the identification parade after barely five months of the incident how could they identify the accused persons in the Court after 3-1/2 years. Therefore since the witnesses were not able to identify the accused correctly in the identification parade this Court would not be able to believe that they were identified in the Court. May be during the course of three years they had taken steps to see the accused just to identify them in the Court. 9. The main witness to the identification parade is the Magistrate concerned. He is P.W. 8. He stated that a requisition was sent to him for carrying the identification parade at Central Prison. Warangal. He issued summons to the witnesses and carried the parade on 2-9-1995. The identification parade was conducted inside the jail premises near the office of the Welfare Officer. He got 20 non - suspects who were similar in appearance and were also in the same age group as that of the suspects the suspects and non - suspects were also wearing same type of garments. He recorded the particulars of four suspects and 20 non - suspects. Except him and his attender nobody else was present at the time of conducting the parade. After placing the suspects and non –suspects, 24 in all in a row he summoned first witness Vengala Narayana who is P.W. 1 and asked him to go through the row and identify the suspects who had attacked him on 4-4-1995. He identified all the four accused correctly. He sent this witness away and asked another witness he changed the position of the persons in, the row and also changed the costumes of some of them. The second witness was E. Ramesh who is P.W. 2. He identified all the four accused correctly. He sent this witness away and asked another witness he changed the position of the persons in, the row and also changed the costumes of some of them. The second witness was E. Ramesh who is P.W. 2. He correctly identified suspect No.2 Pedda Ramulu but wrongly identified non-suspects by name G. Giri and Mekala Veeraswamy. Then the third witness R. Venkateswarlu who is P.W. 3 was summoned. He failed to indentify any suspect or non - suspect. Fourth and fifth witnesses also did not identify any person as suspects. So, in all out of five witnesses only one witness was able to identify the accused. Whether it will be safe to rely on his identification in order to convict the accused is a question that has to be answered. This witness (P.W. 1), according to him suffered an injury in one eye. He saw the accused persons for the first time at the time of the occurrence. He was given a blow on his eye while he was on the scooter obviously by one of the accused persons. His eye got permanently damaged and it had to be removed and an artificial eye had to be put in that place. The time was between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30.p.m. in the night. The identification parade was carried after five months of the incident. In these circumstances it is highly improbable that the witness could identify the accused persons. Even otherwise the identification parade was conducted after a long time without assigning any reasons for the delay. The Supreme Court has held that it is not safe to rely on such identification. Reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Shabad Pulla Peddy and others v. State of A.P.I. Although in that case the identification parade was carried after three months of the arrest of the accused and in the present case it has been done only after one month of arrest of the accused but the one months delay is not explained. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a strong suspicion that this one month was perhaps used by the prosecution for showing the accused to P.W.1 or at least showing photographs of the accused persons to P.W.1. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a strong suspicion that this one month was perhaps used by the prosecution for showing the accused to P.W.1 or at least showing photographs of the accused persons to P.W.1. Since it was highly improbable for P.W.1 to indentify the accused persons for the reasons given herein above this Court does not believe that the accused persons were identified properly by the witnesses. This view of this Court gets further strengthened by the fact that although there were five people present at the time 1. 1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 580 (SC). of occurrence four of them could not identify the accused persons though they were in a better position to identify the accused persons for two reasons one that there was no injury to eye of anyone of them secondly some of them were pillion riders or pedestrians whereas the P.W.1 was driving the scooter while driving the scooter he had to divert his attention not only to driving the scooter I but also to defending himself from the attackers besides from the first blow itself he lost his eye sight and therefore it is highly improbable for him to have remembered the face of the accused persons. Therefore. I do not believe and I hold that the trial Court was not correct in accepting that the accused persons were identified by the witnesses. 10. Now coming to the circumstance relating to the recovery of the property which allegedly was taken away from the witnesses by the accused persons the property was identified by the witnesses in the Court. P.W. 14 is Inspector of Police who at the time of investigation of this case was working as C.I. at Cherial. According to him on 31st July. 1995 on reliable information he along with C.I. Sri Badhullah and other persons went to Jangaon Bus stand from Cherial where he apprehended six accused persons at 23.00 hours. They were interrogated separately and individually in the presence of two panch witnesses P.W. 5 and another. A1 to A4 confessed their guilt. He recovered a gold ring weighing 5 grams from the possession of A1. other accused persons had mortgaged their share in the looted booty and admitted that they had received the money. They had also confessed having committed other offences. They were arrested and sent for judicial remand. 11. A1 to A4 confessed their guilt. He recovered a gold ring weighing 5 grams from the possession of A1. other accused persons had mortgaged their share in the looted booty and admitted that they had received the money. They had also confessed having committed other offences. They were arrested and sent for judicial remand. 11. So, according to this witness 424 (High Courts Section) only one gold ring was recovered from the possession of Al at his instance. The only witness produced to support the recovery is P.W. 5. Although he stated that he was accompanied by Sri Badhullah, C.I., Budhullah has not been examined as witness. He also stated that the recovery was made in presence of two panch, witnesses P.W. 5 and another, that another witness has also not been produced. Now, P.W. 5 states that he was called to witness the recovery. When he went to the place he found six persons and two C.Is. of Police. The police asked him to make enquiries from those persons one by one. He talked to one of them first who told him that his name was Shivarathri Gudia Komuraiah. He told him that he was committing dacoities, alongwith him there are 10 other persons. He further told him that he had got one gold ring as his share. This person showed him the gold ring that was M.O. 1. He exhibited his signature on EX. P-2. The witness also enquired from another person who told him his name as Dandugulla Pedda Ramulu. He also confessed that he had committed dacoities with other ten persons. Then, another person was enquired from by the witness who stated his name as Shivarathri Yadagiri. He also stated that he had committed dacoities. Then, he called another person who gave his name as Kuncham Chandraiah. He also confessed that he had committed dacoities and the money he had taken as his share has been spent by him. In his cross-examination the witness stated that the persons with whom he had been asked to talk had - told him that they had been in police custody for one week. The C.I. had shown the jewellery from a bag. This jewellery was shown to him not by 1 he accused but by the police officer and it was taken from the bag. The C.I. had shown the jewellery from a bag. This jewellery was shown to him not by 1 he accused but by the police officer and it was taken from the bag. He also admitted that, previously in a similar case pertaining to Regonda Police Station he had acted as mediator and he had come to know Badullah. He was made to sign 80 or 90 chits for pasting on the jewellary. The proceedings ended on next day at 9.00 a.m. whereas he had gone on earlier day at 11.00 p.m. They were sitting near the Control room. He was at the Bus stand road when he was called by the Police. 12. In the light of this statement it becomes highly difficult to accept the assertions. The witness stated that the ring which was alleged to be recovered from A1 was in fact taken away from a jewellary bag, at that point of time it was not only one ring which was in the possession of the police officers. According to the witness he had signed 80 to 90 chits for pasting on the jewellary. For one ring 80 or 90 chits would not be prepared. It would not take about ten hours to make the recovery from an arrested person and that too of a single ring. 13. In view of the fact that Badullah was not examined, another panch witness was also not examined and in view of the fact that the statement of P .W. 5 itself is not reliable for the reasons given above this Court does not feel that the recovery from A1 is proved and as against other accused persons there is not even an alleged recovery. This witness (P.W. 5) cannot be believed for an added reason that he appears to be a stock witness as he had admitted that he was a witness for such type of recoveries previously also. 14. For these reasons, I do not find that the trial Court was right in convicting the accused. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. 15. Before parting with the case. I would like to point out that this Court had the occasion of deciding seventeen matters arising out of seventeen judgments of conviction passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge. Warangal Mr. A. Balachandra Peddy. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. 15. Before parting with the case. I would like to point out that this Court had the occasion of deciding seventeen matters arising out of seventeen judgments of conviction passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge. Warangal Mr. A. Balachandra Peddy. In all the seventeen judgments passed by the trial Court no reasons whatsoever have been given for convicting the accused persons. The learned Judge has merely reproduced the statements of the witnesses one by one and after doing that he has merely stated; "In view of above oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused". There has been no attempt on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to weigh the evidence. He has not also mentioned any of the arguments that might have been advanced during the hearing of the cases. As has been mentioned herein above and in other judgments viz. Crl. A. Nos. 338/ 2000, 348/2000, 349/2000, 362/2000, 363/2000, 364/2000, 366/2000, 374/ 2000, 375/2000, 376/2000, 387/2000, 388/2000, 389/2000, 390/2000, 391/2000 and 414/2000 there was no evidence connecting the accused persons in all the seventeen matters to the offence they were charged with, yet without any discussion or reason the learned Sessions Judge convicted them. It is often said that, Justice delayed is justice denied but here is a case we find Justice hurried is justice buried. The learned Sessions Judge should take note of these observations so that he takes appropriate -corrective measures in future because such mistakes give rise to such conflictions which are irreversible. In the present matters number of persons were in custody for many months. Had the learned Sessions Judge looked into the matters in accordance with requirement of law, these persons would have not gone to the jail and unfortunately the agony these appellants suffered cannot be reversed. Appeal allowed.