Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated January 22, 2002 was pleased to convict Pritam, appellant herein, and his co-accused Hardeep for various offences punishable under Sections 397 and 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC respectively. Pritam has filed this appeal to challenge his conviction under Section 397 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on February 25, 1995 Onkar Nath Khanna had locked his service station known as Khanna motors at about 6 PM. At that time a new Maruti 800 without registration and another car bearing No. DL-IC- 8567 were parked at the workshop for repairs. The new car was parked in the garage while the other car was standing outside. Onkar Naths employees Suresh (a.k.a. Surinder) and Raghunath Rai, watchman and helper, respectively, used to stay in the workshop during the night. On the following morning at about 4 AM four persons armed with a pistol and knifes entered the workshop. They tied Surinder and Raghunath with a rope and after breaking open the lock took away the new car as well as two number plates of the other car. When the complainant reached his workshop he was informed of this incident by Surinder and Raghunath. He lodged a complaint and on its basis case was registered at PS Sadar Gurgaon. During investigation Pritam and one Sukh Ram were arrested. They made separate statements on April 18, 1995 to the effect that they both along with Radhey @ Gurcharan had committed the robbery of the car from the workshop. They further disclosed that they had been paid Rs. 9000/- and 10,000/- respectively by Radhey, who took the car. Radhey was arrested on October 5, 1995. He made a disclosure statement confirming that he had sold the robber car to Hardeep. When Hardeep was arrested on October 17, 1995 disclosed that he had been delivered a car with fake registration No. DL-IC- 8567. He sold this car to Satinder Singh Gill of Chandigarh after getting fake bill and registration certificate prepared in the name of Satinder Singh. The robber car was recovered from Chandigarh on October 21, 1995. 2. After completion of the investigation, Pritam, Sukh Ram, Radhey @ Gurcharan and Hardeep were sent up for trial. He sold this car to Satinder Singh Gill of Chandigarh after getting fake bill and registration certificate prepared in the name of Satinder Singh. The robber car was recovered from Chandigarh on October 21, 1995. 2. After completion of the investigation, Pritam, Sukh Ram, Radhey @ Gurcharan and Hardeep were sent up for trial. After charges were framed, the main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Onkar Nath Khanna (PW 1), Inderpal Singh (PW 2), Baljit Singh (PW 3), Raj Kumar (PW 4), Asa Mohd. (PW 5), Rajesh Mehra (PW 6), Inspector Raj Singh (PW 7), HC Ram Phal (PW 8), Rohtash Singh (PW 9), ASI Mahender Singh (PW 10), C. Mohan Singh (PW 11), Addl. C.J.M. Ashok Bhardwaj (PW 13), HC Pohap Singh and Raghunath Rai (PW 14). The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution case stating they had been falsely implicated. The learned trial judge accepted the prosecution case and concluded that Raghunath Rai (PW 14) had correctly identified the appellant in court as the man who was armed with a knife at the relevant time and who had entered the workshop with another person armed with a pistol. Some more persons had come with these two men. The two men had tied up Raghunath. When Surinder came up he was also tied. Thereafter, the two intruders made a signal and few other men came up stairs and bolted the door from out side, after which they drove away in the new car. The learned trial judge concluded that Pritams guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of his identification by Raghunath and accordingly Pritam was convicted under Section 397 IPC. Hardeep was found guilty under Sections 411, 419, 468 and 471 IPC. The others were acquitted. 3. The main witnesses who deposed against the present appellants were Onkar Nath Khanna (PW 1) and his helper Raghunath Rai (PW 14). The testimony of Onkar Nath was that he was informed on the morning of February 26, 1995 by Raghunath that a dacoity had taken place in the workshop between 4-6 AM and a new car had been stolen. The car had been received by the witness at his workshop for pre delivery inspection. There was another car bearing No. DL-IC-8567 at the workshop at that time which had been received only for servicing. The car had been received by the witness at his workshop for pre delivery inspection. There was another car bearing No. DL-IC-8567 at the workshop at that time which had been received only for servicing. Raghunath also informed that the number plates of the other car had been taken away by the culprits. When Onkar Nath went to the workshop at 8.30 AM he was told by Surinder, Chowkidar that four persons had come, one was armed with a pistol and they tied Raghunath who was sleeping upstairs, when Surinder went there he also met the same fate. The robbers picked up the keys of the car and keys of the gate and took the car away. 4. Raghunath stated that on February 26 at about 4.30 AM when he was sleeping in the factory (workshop) two persons entered the room, one was holding a knife and the other a pistol. Raghunath got up and he was tied with a muffler by both of them. The two robbers made a signal and few more men came up and Surinder was also tied with a muffler. Raghunath was categoric that he could identify the man holding the knife. He pointed towards Pritam in court and stated that he was the one who held the knife at that time. After the robbers had taken the car away Raghunath called for help and he was rescued. Thereafter, the owner of the workshop was informed of the incident. The important point to note in this case is that even though Pritam was taken into custody on April 18, 1995 no attempt was made by the investigating officer to arrange for a test identification parade and require Raghunath and Surinder to come forward and identity him from among a group of persons of similar physical description. Raghunath on cross-examination had categorically stated that he had not known any of the assailants previously. However, the defence counsel was not content with this statement and he pressed the question of identify further only to enable the witness to state that he did not see accused Pritam outside the court on that day. This is a glaring example of careless cross-examination which could have had a serious impact on Pritams defence. 5. However, the defence counsel was not content with this statement and he pressed the question of identify further only to enable the witness to state that he did not see accused Pritam outside the court on that day. This is a glaring example of careless cross-examination which could have had a serious impact on Pritams defence. 5. The occurrence had taken place on February 26, 1995 and Raghunath had identified Pritam in court for the one and only time on November 7, 2001, six and a half years after the occurrence. This must indeed be quite a feat of memory and observations skills. 6. Learned counsel has referred to the well known ruling on the question of identification reported as Kanan and others v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1127, wherein it was held as under :- "Where a witness identified 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 T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding I.T. parade under Section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seem only once. If no T.I. parade is held that it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. 7. To similar effect are case reported as Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983(1) RCR(Criminal) 141 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 367, State of U.P. v. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, 1996(3) RCR(Criminal) 303 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 3473, Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 335 (SC) : JT 1998(3) SC 135, Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 754 (SC) : JT 1999(9) SC 1 and Balmukand and @ Lakha v. State of Punjab, 2001(2) RCR 275. 8. It is extremely unfortunate that a daring act of robbery should go unpunished but the blame for this must lie squarely on the investigating officer, who for reasons best known to him did not arrange for the test identification parade at the earliest after the appellant had been arrested. Even otherwise, the investigating officer conducted a meticulous investigating and succeeded in tracing the stolen car and recovered it. Even otherwise, the investigating officer conducted a meticulous investigating and succeeded in tracing the stolen car and recovered it. But failure to get the accused identified is a serious one. It is possible that the accused may have declined to join the identification parade, in that event court may have assumed that it was the accused who had committed the robbery. However, failure to hold the test identification parade is singularly an act inept investigation. Surprisingly, the trial court did not consider this argument and dismissed it in the following words :- "Nextly, it is the vehemently argued that no test identification parade was got conducted by the investigating officer and the identification of Pritam accused, for the first time in court, is no identification in the eye of law. This contention is without any substantial merit. Despite the fact that no identification parade of Pritam accused was got done by the investigating agency from the witness, the identification of accused Pritam in the court by an eye witness is a clinching piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. The identification of the accused in the court is the real test of identification and once accused Pritam is identified it does not lie in his mouth to say that he was not got identified by the police through the identification parade." 9. Identification of an accused in court is the real test of identity, not the only test unless a test identification parade has been held. The only evidence against the appellant is of Raghunath (PW 15) who managed to point the appellant as one of the persons who had participated in the robbery but this was after six and a half years of the occurrence. The identification is totally valueless. 10. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge.