Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Eight persons in all were put on trial, four were acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.5.94, Mahasundari Devi, the informant of the case, and her family members went to sleep after taking meal in their house in village Moglaha within Babubarhi Police Station of Madhubani district. At about 11 P.M. her husband Laxman Thakur who was sleeping in the Dalan called his younger brother Rajendra Thakur who was sleeping inside the house. Rajendra Thakur went to open the door. The informant and her daughter Rina Kumari followed him. As soon as Rajendra Thakur opened the door they saw four persons standing with weapons. One of them wearing black full pant (trouser) and check shirt opened fire. Rajendra Thakur fell down. To protect him the informant fell over his body and told the miscreants to take away the valuables but not harm her Devar. The miscreant in black full pant ordered to kill the informants husband and Devar i.e. Laxman Thakur and Rajendra Thakur. On this the miscreant wearing white full pant gave 3-4 dagger blows on Rajendra Thakur. One of the miscreants assaulted the informant with Lathi on her back and shoulder. Laxman Thakur was also assaulted with lathi and rod. 4-5 miscreants entered the house and looted the house effects for about 15 minutes. The villagers raised alarm whereafter the miscreants who were 20-25 in number, fled away with the looted articles. In the meantime several villagers including Binod Thakur, assembled there. By the time Rajendra Thakur had succumbed to his injuries. Laxman Thakur was also unconscious. The informant stated that the miscreants had looted ornaments, Sari and cash after breaking open the boxes and Godrej almirah. The particulars of the articles would be given by wife of Rajendra Thakur and her Jaut Ashok Kumar and his wife, and sister who had gone to Darbhanga for medical treatment. The informant gave description of physical appearance of the miscreants, their clothings and the weapons. The informant stated that miscreants were conversing in Hindi and Maithli languages. She claimed that she as well as her family members could identify the miscreants as well as the looted articles. The informant gave description of physical appearance of the miscreants, their clothings and the weapons. The informant stated that miscreants were conversing in Hindi and Maithli languages. She claimed that she as well as her family members could identify the miscreants as well as the looted articles. According to the informant the miscreants were identified in the light of lantern and also torchlight and moonlight. 3. The occurrence was reported to SI S.K. Gupta, Officer-in-Charge of Babubarhi police station, in the same night at 2 A.M at the place of occurrence itself. On the basis of the fardbeyan Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 46/94 was registered against unknown and the investigation was taken up by SI Awadh Kishore Singh. Awadh Kishore Singh inspected the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report in presence ot witnesses, sent the body for post mortem and recorded statements of the witnesses. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet against some of the accused. A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted by SI Indu Kant Choudhary against some other accused after the retirement of SI Awadh Kishore Singh, and that is how the appellants were put on trial. Some of the charge-sheeted accused were not put on trial as they were absconding. 4. At the trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. The material witnesses are P.W. 1 Binod Kumar, P.W. 2 Mahendra Thakur, P.W. 3 Rina Kumari, P.W. 4 Laxman Thakur and P.W. 5 Mahasundari Devi, Binod Kumar Thakur, it may be mentioned here itself, is co-villager and an independent witness, while others are family members of the deceased/informant. Mahendra Thakur is the son-in-law of the informant, Rina Kumari is daughter of the deceased, Laxman Thakur is brother of the deceased and husband of informant, and Mahasundari Devi is the informant herself. P.W. 11 Subhash Chandra Mishra was examined as formal witness. The remaining witnesses are official witnesses. P.W. 6 Chandrika Ram and P.W. 7 Pramod Kumar Singh are judicial officers who had conducted the test identification parades. P.W. 8 Dr. B.N. Jha is a doctor who had conducted the post mortem of RajendraThakur, P.W. 12 Dr. Prahlad Singh is another doctor who had examined the injuries on Laxman Thakur and informant Mahasundari Devi, P.W. 9 Indu Kant Choudhary, P.W. 10 Awadh Kishore Singh, as mentioned above, are the Investigating Officers. 5. The appellants also examined four witnesses in defence. B.N. Jha is a doctor who had conducted the post mortem of RajendraThakur, P.W. 12 Dr. Prahlad Singh is another doctor who had examined the injuries on Laxman Thakur and informant Mahasundari Devi, P.W. 9 Indu Kant Choudhary, P.W. 10 Awadh Kishore Singh, as mentioned above, are the Investigating Officers. 5. The appellants also examined four witnesses in defence. D.W. 1 Ram Parichhan Singh and D.W. 3, Subhash Chandra Mishra (curiously same Subhash Chandra Mishra who was examined as P.W. 11) were examined on the point of enmity between appellant Jitendra Singh and the informants family, D.W. 2 Shiv Sundar Choudhary was also examined on the point of enmity with the rest of the three appellants. D.W. 4 Ramesh Sah proved certain documents. 6. At the end of the trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated at the outset while acquitting the rest four put on trial along with them. 7. At this stage it is relevant to mention that test identification parade was held in this case on four days. While P.W. 6 Chandrika Ram conducted identification parades on 19.7.94, 15.11.94 and 6.3.95, P.W. 7 Pramod Kumar Singh conducted identification Parade on 15.5.95. At the T.I. Parade held on 19.7.94 appellant Umesh Kamat was identified by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 while at theT.I. Parades held on 15.11.94, 6.3.95 and 15.5.95, appellant Dinesh Mahto was identified by P.W. 1, appellant Rajeshwar Singh was identified by P.W. 4 and appellant Jitendra Singh was identified by P.W. 3, respectively. Thus while Umesh Kamat was identified by three witnesses at the T.l. Parade, the remaining three appellants were identified by one witness each. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the T.l. Parades were held after inordinate delay and therefore no reliance can be placed on the identification. it was also submitted that there is discrepancy on the point of means of identification. In any view, the night of occurrence being a dark night, as admitted by the witnesses, and the source of light being meagre, the identification becomes doubtful, and in the circumstances the trial court committed error in accepting the identification. Like the appellants, co-accused Ram Kishore Rai, Mahesh Thakur and Ravinder Singh too had been identified by the same prosecution witnesses but the trial court did not accept their identification and acquitted them. Like the appellants, co-accused Ram Kishore Rai, Mahesh Thakur and Ravinder Singh too had been identified by the same prosecution witnesses but the trial court did not accept their identification and acquitted them. The identification of the appellants should also have been disbelieved and they should have been acquitted. In Cr. Appeal Nos. 40, 54 and 82 of 1999 it was submitted that conviction is based on single identification which is the facts and circumstances should be held to be insufficient and the concerned appellants should be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 9. On the point of delay in arranging test identification parades, counsel for the appellants cited several decisions to buttress their contention that the delay in conducting the test identification parade makes the identification doubtful. The decisions relied upon are Soni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 368 , Subhash and Shiv Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1222 , and Hari Nath vs. State of UP., AIR 1988 SC 345 . On behalf of the State reliance was placed on Ramnandan Ramnath vs. State of M.P., 1996 SCC (Cri) 684, and Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2003) 3 SCC 569 . 10. In Soni vs. State of U.P. (supra) there was delay of 42 days in conducting the identification parade which was held to make the identification doubtful. In Subhas and Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. (supra) and Hari Nath vs. State of U.P. (supra) the T.I. parade had been held after four months. In the cases relied upon on behalf of the State the T.I. Parade was held after 39 days of the occurrence and 15 days after the arrest in the first case. In the case of Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P. (supra) the conviction of the appellant was upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis of evidence of the Magistrate who had conducted the test identification parade. 11. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to the period within which the T.I. Parade must be held, and the identification of the accused at the T.I. Parade held thereafter must be rejected. It is a rule of prudence that the T.I. Parade should be held as early as possible on the premise that the human memory is short and the impression of event becomes faint after some time. It is a rule of prudence that the T.I. Parade should be held as early as possible on the premise that the human memory is short and the impression of event becomes faint after some time. However, this is a question of appreciation of evidence and therefore, the reliability or otherwise of the identification at the T.I. Parade would depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case irrespective of the time lapse. In the case of Daya Singh vs. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 468 the test identification parade was held after almost eight years. Though this was largely on account of the fact that the accused could not be arrested for seven and half years, even after the arrest the T.I. parade was held after six months. The Apex Court accepted the identification observing that where the occurrence leaves an enduring impression on the mind of the witness about the identity of the accused his identification should not be rejected on the ground of delay in holding identification at T.I. Parade. The Court observed that the purpose of T.I. Parade is to see corroboration of evidence of the eye witnesses. If substantive evidence of eye witnesses given in Court is trustworthy and without any motive, absence of corroboration of T.I. parade would be immaterial. In State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 , it was observed that test identification parades are not primarily meant for the Court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is two-fold-to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them at the time of occurrence. Secondly, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen at the occurrence. In the case of Ram Nath Mahto vs. State of Bihar, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 726, the conviction was upheld even in the absence of substantive evidence of the eye witness in Court, on the basis of the evidence of the Magistrate on the point of identification by the witness at the T.I. Parade. The Court was satisfied that the failure to identify in Court was because he was frightened of the accused. 12. The Court was satisfied that the failure to identify in Court was because he was frightened of the accused. 12. Coming to the instant case, as indicated above, the material witnesses on the point of identification are P.W. 1 Binod Thakur, P.W. 3 Rina Kumari and P.W. 4 Laxman Thakur. Though the remaining two witnesses namely, P.W. 2 Mahendra Thakur and P.W. 5 Mahasundari Devi, the informant herself, stated about the identification of the accused, they failed to identify any of them at the T.I. Parades. They did identify different accused in Court but having regard to the fact that they had failed to identify the accused at the T.I. Parades their identification in Court after more than two years of the occurrence does not inspire such confidence. The trial court too has placed reliance only on P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 for convicting the appellants and therefore, it fs not necessary to notice the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 13. P.W. 1 Binod Thakur as mentioned above, is an independent witness. He stated that in the night of occurrence while he was sleeping in his house situate at distance of 5-6 laggies (one laggi = five and half cubits) he heard the shouts about dacoity and proceeded towards the house of Rajendra Thakur with torch. In the torch light he saw four persons assaulting Rajendra Thakur near the Dalan. One of them had torch and others were armed with pistol, knife and rod. He identified amongst them, appellant Umesh Kamat. He had identified him at the T.I. Parade too. After he was threatened he returned to his house. Later he again went to the victims house and also went to the police station. He stated that at the T.I. Parade held on 19.7.94 he was the only witness to identify the said appellant. P.W. 3 is daughter of the deceased, she stated that on call of her uncle P.W. 4 Laxman Thakur from outside, her father Rajendra Thakur woke up and opened the door. She along with her aunt Mahasundari Devi followed him. She saw the miscreants firing on her father. He was shot at and also assaulted by knife by the miscreants. Describing the general appearance of the miscreants she identified in Court the appellants Umesh Kamat and Jitendra Singh whom she had identified at the T.I. Parade too. She along with her aunt Mahasundari Devi followed him. She saw the miscreants firing on her father. He was shot at and also assaulted by knife by the miscreants. Describing the general appearance of the miscreants she identified in Court the appellants Umesh Kamat and Jitendra Singh whom she had identified at the T.I. Parade too. The brother of the deceased, PW 4 Lakshman Thakur also gave similar version of the occurrence. He stated that he too was assaulted in the occurrence which made him unconscious. As regards this witness, it is relevant to mention that his injuries were examined by P.W. 12 Dr. Prahlad Singh on 29.5.94 at 9 A.M. who found (i) abrasion with swelling of whole nose with epistaxis from nostril and (ii) Ecchymosis of size 6" x 1/2" (three in number) on back and chest. The fact that P.W. 4 sustained injuries fends credence to his presence at the place and time of occurrence. As a matter of fact, he was sleeping on the Dalan and therefore had to bear the initial brunt of assault at the hands of the miscreants. Rajendra Thakur was assaulted more severely after he opened the door, apparently to create terror in the mind of inmates. 14. Considering the relationship of the deceased with P.Ws. 3 and 4, in fact, P.W. 4 having received injuries along with his wife Mahasundari Devi, the incident must have left a deep impression in their mind which was not likely to erase within few weeks or months. Apart from P.Ws. 3 and 4, the evidence of P.W. 1, an independent witness, makes a natural reading and there is nothing therein to make the same doubtful. His house situate just by the side of the victims house and going by his sur name, he appears to be of same caste, the incident must have left an impression on his mind which could not have erased within 2-3 months of the occurrence. He identified appellant Umesh Kamat. 15. From the evidence of the Magistrate who conducted the T.I. Parade. it appears that the suspects had been mixed up in a group of 30-35 similarly looking persons and the police was not present at the relevant time. The Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that he took the witnesses to the Jail where T.I. Parade was held leaving them at the gate. He waited outside Jail. it appears that the suspects had been mixed up in a group of 30-35 similarly looking persons and the police was not present at the relevant time. The Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that he took the witnesses to the Jail where T.I. Parade was held leaving them at the gate. He waited outside Jail. The witnesses came out after the T.I. Parade was over. After going through the unchallenged evidence of the Magistrates and the Invesigating Officer, it appears that due safeguards were observed in conducting T.I. Parades. The evidence of the Magistrate on the point of identification of the appellants in his presence also lends corroboration to the claim of the witnesses of seeing them at the time of occurrence. It may be recalled that in the case of Ram Nath Mahto (supra), the conviction was upheld on the evidence of T.I.P. Magistrate. 16. At this stage, the period within which the test identification parades were held may be stated at one place. Appellant Umesh Kamat was arrested on 3.7.94. He was identified at the T.I. Parade on 19.7.94. Reckoned from the date of occurrence, it was within less than two months. Appellant Dinesh Mahto was arrested on 27.10.94 and remanded in the case on 28.10.94, 18 days thereafter the T.I. Parade was held on 15.11.94. Reckoned from the date of occurrence, the T.I. Parade was held after about six months. The other two T.l. Parades were held on 6.3.95 and 15.5.95 at which appellants Rajeshwar Singh and Jitendra Singh respectively were identified, after about 10 months and one year of the occurrence, respectively. 17. It would thus appear that so far as the appellants other than Umesh Kamat are concerned, they were identified at the T.I. Parade after about 6 months, 10 months and one year of the occurrence, respectively. They were identified by only one witness each as against appellant Umesh Kamat who was identified by three witnesses and within two months of the occurrence. In these premises, I am of the view that a distinction can be made between the cases of Umesh Kamat on the one hand and the remaining appellants on the other. They were identified by only one witnesses each and after lapse of considerable time. They may, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 18. In these premises, I am of the view that a distinction can be made between the cases of Umesh Kamat on the one hand and the remaining appellants on the other. They were identified by only one witnesses each and after lapse of considerable time. They may, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, the appeals of Dinesh Mahto, Jitendra Singh alias Jitendra Kumar Singh and Rajeshwar Singh (Cr. Appeal nos. 40, 54 and 82 of 1999) are allowed. They are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Appeal of Umesh Kamat (Cr. Appeal No. 60 of 1999) is dismissed. He is in jail. He will serve the remainder of sentence. A.K.Verma, J. 19 I agree.