Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Ashwani Kumar @ Babbi, Ganesh Raj @ Bitu and Surjit Singh @ Titu to challenge their conviction by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for house tress-pass, double murder, rape and assault. The appellants were sentenced to undergo various terms as given in detail in the judgment of the trial Court vide judgment dated February 10, 1998. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. On the report of August 23/24, 1993 the homestead (dera) of Dalmir Mohd. (80) in Musahibpur was invaded by three men. Dalmir Mohd., his daughter Dil Bibi (35, PW 5), Dil Bibis daughter Seema (9 months) and Dalmir Mohd.s sons daughter Leema 17, PW 4) were lying asleep on cots. The men were armed with sickles. They caught hold of Leema but when she raised an alarm her grand father Dalmir Mohd. and Dil Bibi also woke up and tried to rescue her, whereupon Dalmir Mohd. was hit on the face. The investigating officer commenced investigating by inspecting the place of occurrence and preparing the rough site plan. He also took blood stained earth from the spot where the dead bodies of Dalmir Mohd. and Seema were lying. Inquest reports of the dead bodies were prepared. However, the investigation was transferred to ASI Darbari Lal (PW 12) who on September 7, 1993 arrested Ashwani Kaur, Dinesh (a.k.a Ganesh) and Surjit Singh, the appellants herein, who were already in custody of the police in FIR 72/93 under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act registered at PS Mukerian. They were medico-legally examined and interrogated on September 8, 1993. On the basis of interrogation an axe was recovered from the possession of Surjit Singh who had kept it concealed in a rivulet. Ashwami Kumar got a sickle recovered from bushes on the banks of a rivulet. After completion of the investigation, the three accused were sent up for trial. 3. On the basis of interrogation an axe was recovered from the possession of Surjit Singh who had kept it concealed in a rivulet. Ashwami Kumar got a sickle recovered from bushes on the banks of a rivulet. After completion of the investigation, the three accused were sent up for trial. 3. At the trial charges were framed against the accused under Sections 449, 376 and 302 IPC (against Surjit Singh for the murder of Seema and against Ashwani Kumar and Ganesh Raj under Section 302 read with 34 IPC), against all the three accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for the murder of Dalmir Mohd., under Sections 326, 324 read with 34 IPC (for grievous and simple hurt inflicted on Dil Bibi with sharp edged weapons). At the trial the main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Leema (PW 4), Dil Bibi (PW 5), Fakir Mohd. (PW 10), ASI Darbari Lal (PW 12) and Inspector Jagdish Singh (PW 13). It may be noted that the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Dalmir Mohd. and Seema was never conducted because Dalmir Mohds son Faqir Mohd. applied for exemption from post-mortem vide letter dated August 24, 1993 to Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur (Ex. PL). The reason given was that the two deceased had been murdered by unknown persons whom he did not know and post-mortem examination was against their religion. Report was obtained from ASI Jagdish Singh, who gave the brief facts of the facts of the case and also submitted that it was necessary to know the cause of death, therefore the post-mortem of the dead bodies may be conducted but SP/D recorded no objection on August 25, 1993 on the foot of Ex. PL/1 and District Magistrate ordered that since the police had no objection, dead bodies be handed over to the heirs without post-mortem examination. 4. When the accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they pleaded false implication and stated that they had been taken into custody by the police on the next day at the instance of the accused in the village. Some unknown person had killed the deceased because Dil Bibi deserted her husband and was living with her father. The accused were called upon to enter defence but they did not examine any defence witness. 5. The learned Addl. Some unknown person had killed the deceased because Dil Bibi deserted her husband and was living with her father. The accused were called upon to enter defence but they did not examine any defence witness. 5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no delay in the lodging of FIR, the arrest of the accused was not doubtful, the identification of the accused in Court was valid and did not make any difference if the accused had not been named in the FIR and the recoveries from the accused were acceptable. The accused were convicted for various offences. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution case was seriously flawed because the accused had not been got identified by Leema and Dil Bibi in a properly constituted identification parade as required by law. The evidence of Leema, that she had known the appellants as she used to see them come with their cattle to the rivulet near their dera and for this reason she knew all the accused was challenged. She had also stated that at the time of the occurrence earthen lamp was burning in the Dera and it was also a moon lit night. 7. It was further argued that there was no evidence whatsoever of the nature of injuries received by Dalmir Mohd. and Seema, the two deceased persons. Since no post-mortem examination of the dead bodies was got conducted by the police on the false pretext that, as per custom, dead bodies of Mohammedans was not subjected to post-mortem. The deceased had been buried without post- mortem. Reference was also made to Leemas statement in cross-examination that the accused had been brought to the dera by the police on the following morning and then taken away by the police. Similarly, Dil Bibi also stated that all the accused had been brought to the Civil Hospital and shown to her by the police on the following day. 8. It is unfortunate that a gruesome double murder along with rape of a young woman was investigated in a lackadaisical and shoddy way. There is no explanation forthcoming for failure to arrange the test identification parade. 8. It is unfortunate that a gruesome double murder along with rape of a young woman was investigated in a lackadaisical and shoddy way. There is no explanation forthcoming for failure to arrange the test identification parade. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court in Kanan and others v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 (SC) 1127 that identification of the accused in court for the first time was valueless unless there had a previous test identification parade. The observations of the court were 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 T.I. 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 seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in court." 9. Both Leema (PW4) and Dil Bibi (PW5) gave a detailed account of the occurrence. They had both testified that at about 12.15 AM (past mid night), they were sleeping on cots in Dalmir Mohd.s homestead. At that time an earthen lamp was burning and it was also a moon lit night. Three persons reached there armed with sickles and out of them one caught hold of Leema. When Leema raised an alarm Dalmir Mohd. and Dil Bibi woke up and tried to rescue her. The person who caught hold of Leema was Ashwani Kumar, appellant. The other two persons were Ganesh Raj and Surjit Singh, appellants. Surjit Singh inflicted kulhari blow on Dalmir Mohd. and Ganesh Raj inflicted a sickle blow on the face of Dalmir Mohd.. They both inflicted more injuries on Dil Bibi with a kulhari on her ear and he gave a kulhari blow on the head of Seema. Dalmir Mohd. Seema died at the spot. Thereafter Ashwani Kumar forcibly took Leema to a near by sugar-cane field where he raped her. When Dil Bibi came to rescue Leema she was caught hold of by Surjit Singh and Ganesh Raj. Thereafter, Surjit Singh and Ganesh also raped Leema. Dalmir Mohd. Seema died at the spot. Thereafter Ashwani Kumar forcibly took Leema to a near by sugar-cane field where he raped her. When Dil Bibi came to rescue Leema she was caught hold of by Surjit Singh and Ganesh Raj. Thereafter, Surjit Singh and Ganesh also raped Leema. In the meantime a shot had fired from the side of the village and the accused escaped. When Leema was cross-examined she was confronted with her statement Ex.PH in which the names of the accused had not at all been mentioned. 10. Dil Bibi when examined as (PW 5) named the three accused and described the parts played by each of them. She was confronted with her statement Ex.DA but not in respect of the names of the accused. It seems that in her police statement dated August 24, 1993 she had mentioned the names of the accused. Fact remains that in the statement of Leema, made to Inspector Jagdish Singh, which formed the basis of FIR, the names of the accused had not been mentioned. 11. Dalmir Mohds son Faqir Mohd (father of Leema) was examined as PW10 and he testified that when he received information about the death of his father he reached Musahibpur at 9 AM and then went to the Mukerian Civil Hospital where Dil Bibi and Leema had been admitted. He also admitted making an application Ex.PL on which order was passed that dead bodies be handed over to him with post-mortem. In cross-examination Faqir Mohd. stated that his sister Dil Bibi had been married to Faiz and after marriage there had been a quarrel between them Dil Bibi started living with her father Dalmir Mohd. Her husband Faiz had tried to take her back but she did not accompany him. 12. Both Leema and Dil Bibi had admitted in the cross-examination that they had seen the appellants with the police on the morning after the occurrence. Therefore, it is surprising why the police did not arrest them immediately, produce them with muffled faces before a Magistrate and pray for sending them to judicial custody for the purposes of a test identification parade. The police delayed arresting the accused until September 7, 1993. According to ASI Darbari Lal (PW 12) the accused had first been arrested in FIR 72/93 and then arrested in the present case, which is FIR 71/93. The police delayed arresting the accused until September 7, 1993. According to ASI Darbari Lal (PW 12) the accused had first been arrested in FIR 72/93 and then arrested in the present case, which is FIR 71/93. Failure of the police to hold the identification parade is a serious one and in the present case amounts to gross dereliction of duty. It would have been another matter if a parade was arranged and the accused had refused to participate in it or the witnesses had failed to point out the accused. It will be excepted District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur will now look into this failure and recommend appropriate action against the erring police official/officials. 13. Furthermore, failure to even get post-mortem examination conducted on the dead bodies of the two deceased on the unacceptable ground that it was against the religion of the deceased is also something which requires to be enquired into. Post-mortem examination of a dead body reveals many clues regarding the types of weapons used, time of occurrence, time which elapsed between injuries and death etc. However, the foremost evidence which the post-mortem reveals is the cause of death. Whether death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental is something the autopsy determines. Failure to hold post-mortem examination is another aspect of this case which should be thoroughly examined and action taken against the erring official/officials who recommended that dead bodies be released to the relatives without conducting post-mortem examinations. 14. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that it was the appellants, who were the persons who had committed the murders of Dalmir Mohd. and Seema and rape upon Leema and caused injuries to Dil Bibi. The appellants had been admittedly taken into custody on the following day but their arrests were not shown for almost two weeks thereafter. This shows that the recoveries from their possession on the basis of their disclosure statements were all a made up affair and could be relied upon to provide corroboration. 15. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted and the appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.