M. B.K., J.:- This Cril.(Jail) appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, (FTC), Manipur East, Imphal in S.T. Case No. 48/89/2/89/16/93/5/94/2/2002 convicting the present appellant and another person, namely, Yangoijam Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh for the commission of offence u/s 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and sentencing both of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- each. The said Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh filed an appeal against the same judgment and order and the said appeal was allowed by this court vide order passed in Cril. (Jail) Appeal Case No. 5 of 2002 on 29.04.2004. 2. According to the prosecution, on 12.9.84, at about 10.15 p.m., the deceased, Soraisam Marjit Singh, brother of the informant, S. Ojit Singh of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai, was called out from inside his residence by two unidentified persons coming on two bi-cycles and on the pretext to have a talk with him conducted him upto the gate of the house in presence of his mother (PW No. 3) and sister (PW No. 4) and shot him dead and fled away thereafter on their bi-cycles. It is also said that the present appellant and the said Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh were identified by the said mother (PW No. 3) and sister (PW No. 4) in a test identification period (hereinafter as “TIP”) held and conducted by the Executive Magistrate (PW No. 6). 4. Both the present appellant and said Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh were tried jointly in respect of the same charge for the commission of the offence u/s 302 IPC read with SEC. 34 IPC. As per the said charge, on 12.9.1984 at about 10.00 pm. They formed a common intention to kill Soraisam Marjit Singh s/o (L) S. Manihar Singh of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai, Imphal and in furtherance of the said common intention, they caused the death of the said Marjit Singh. Both of them pleaded not guilty in respect of the said charge and the trial proceeded. Altogether 11 (eleven) witnesses including 3(three) police officers (PWs No. 7, 8 and 9), the Doctor (PW No. 10), who conducted the post-mortem examination, and the informant (PW No. 1) were examined on the side of the prosecution. P.Ws No. 3 and 4 are the said mother and sister respectively of the deceased. Altogether 11 (eleven) witnesses including 3(three) police officers (PWs No. 7, 8 and 9), the Doctor (PW No. 10), who conducted the post-mortem examination, and the informant (PW No. 1) were examined on the side of the prosecution. P.Ws No. 3 and 4 are the said mother and sister respectively of the deceased. PWs No. 2 & 5 are the close neighbours of the informant, PW No. 11 is a friend of the deceased and PW No. 6 is the Magistrate who conducted the TIP. No defence witness was produced. On being satisfied with the evidence and materials produced on the side of the prosecution, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order. 5. The learned counsel of the appellant draws our attention to the decision of this court passed on 29.4.2004 in Cril(Jail) Appeal Case No. 5/2002 allowing the appeal filed by the other accused Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh and submits that the present appellant is also entitled to be acquitted on the same considerations made in respect of the said Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh in as much as evidence as against both of them are almost same. According to the learned counsel of the appellant, the mother (PW No. 3) and the sister (PW No. 4), who claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence leading to the death of the said Marjit Singh, are not reliable because of inherent contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities in their statements. Further, according to the learned counsel of the appellant, the TIP in which the PW No. 4 is said to have identified both the culprits and PW No. 3 is said to have identified only one of the culprits was not conducted properly and there was inordinate and un-explained delay of about 3(three) months in holding it. In support of his argument about unreliability of the said TIP, learned counsel of the appellant cites State of Vindya Pradesh v. Sarva Munni Bhimar & Ors., AIR 1954 VP 42; State of Assam v. Gunaram Tanti & Ors., 1996(iii) JLT 103; Harinath & Anr. v. State of U.P., 1998(1) SCC 14; State of A.P. v. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy & ors., AIR 1991 SC 1938 . 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. v. State of U.P., 1998(1) SCC 14; State of A.P. v. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy & ors., AIR 1991 SC 1938 . 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP submits that much importance should not be given to minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and that want of evidence of earlier identification in a TIP will not affect the admissibility of the evidence of identification made in the court. According to the learned Addl. PP, there is no need for the prosecution to establish any motives on the part of the accused person for the commission of the crime. The learned Addl. PP cites George & Ors. v. State of Manipur, AIR 1998 SC 1376 ; State of UP v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 , Mulakh Raj & Ors. v. Satishkumar & ors. (1992) 3 SCC 43 . 7. On consideration of the materials before the court in the light of the submissions of the two counsel, it is ascertained that only PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 are said to have seen the occurrence leading to the death of the said Marjit Singh. Both PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 testify to the effect that the person who called out the deceased Marjit Singh in the night was an unknown person and the other person, who rushed towards the deceased and shot him with a gun, was also an unknown person. PW No. 4 identifies both the accused before the court as the two unknown persons involved in the occurrence. According to PW No. 4, accused Gambhir Singh was the person who called out the deceased in the night and the accused Marjit Singh was the one who shot the deceased. PW No. 3 also identifies the accused Gambhir Singh before the court as the unknown person who called out the deceased in the said fateful night. None of the remaining PWs claims to have seen any of the accused persons in that night at or near the place of occurrence. Though, the informant (PW No. 1), who is the elder brother of the deceased Marjit Singh, testifies about hearing of calling of his younger brother Marjit Singh's name by an unknown person, he (PW No. 1) nowhere states that he saw the said unknown persons. Though, the informant (PW No. 1), who is the elder brother of the deceased Marjit Singh, testifies about hearing of calling of his younger brother Marjit Singh's name by an unknown person, he (PW No. 1) nowhere states that he saw the said unknown persons. According to the informant PW No. 1, when he rushed to the spot after hearing the sound of firing and an alarm raised by his mother and sister, he found his brother Marjit Singh lying on the ground and he was informed by his mother as to how the occurrence took place. None of the neighbours (PWs 2 to 5) states that he saw any of the accused at or near the place of occurrence in that night. Thus, the prosecution's case against the present appellant, Gambhir Singh depends on the reliability of the evidence given by PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 identifying him as the unknown person who called out the deceased Marjit Singh in that night. It is to be noted that identification of the said Gambhir Singh by the two witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) before the court during the trial as the unknown person who called out the deceased in that night is made after about 8 years from the date of occurrence. 8. As a rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. However, the evidence of mere identification of the accused at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a week character. It may be quite easy for a witness to identify the accused in the dock and say that he was the person who had committed or had participated in the commission of the crime. Thus, there is a need to ascertain if there is a guarantee of the truth of the identification made by the two witnesses before the court. The purpose of a TIP, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the type of evidence. TIPs are designed to eliminate false assertions as also to guard against honest mistakes. The two witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) nowhere say that the said unknown person who called out the deceased was the person having outstanding features or peculiarities which were noticeable to them. TIPs are designed to eliminate false assertions as also to guard against honest mistakes. The two witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) nowhere say that the said unknown person who called out the deceased was the person having outstanding features or peculiarities which were noticeable to them. Evidence of identification based upon personal impression does call for caution before acceptance. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identify of the accused, who are strangers, to them in the form of earlier identification proceeding. There may, however, be exception to this general rule, when, for example the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony, it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. In the present case, in the absence of anything to show that the said witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) are persons having extraordinary power of remembering the identify of the said unknown persons whom they saw only for some minutes in that night, we are of the opinion that the general rule will apply and as such, there is a need to ascertain if there is a guarantee of the truth of the identification of the said Gambhir Singh made by the two witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) before the court. As an unknown person who called out the deceased in the said night after about 8 years from the day of the occurrence. 9. As the TIPs are test for eliminating false assertions and to guard against the honest mistakes of the witnesses, the following precautions are required to be taken. As an unknown person who called out the deceased in the said night after about 8 years from the day of the occurrence. 9. As the TIPs are test for eliminating false assertions and to guard against the honest mistakes of the witnesses, the following precautions are required to be taken. That they should be held under conditions most conducive to their being fair test for the elicitation of the truth, such as without undue delay when the impressions are fresh and other influences are less likely to have operated, without giving an opportunity to the witnesses to see the accused or to acquaint themselves with features with the aid of photographs, sketches, descriptions or the like by mixing the accused with sufficient number of other persons to eliminate chance identification, by mixing the accused with persons of the same race, culture, age, height and position in life, by allowing the accused to select his own position in the line, by concealing the distinguishing marks of the accused if any, by holding the parade free from the influence of the police and the prosecuting agency, etc. 10. As per evidence of the I.O. (PW No. 8), on interrogation of the accused, Manimatum Singh @ Ibomcha Singh, who was remanded to police custody on 20.10.84, he learnt about the involvement of the other accused Gambhir Singh @ Tomba Singh in the crime and the latter was arrested on 11.12.84 after coming to know that the said accused was in custody of Lamphel Police station in connection with another case. According to PW No. 8, after taking police custody of the said accused Gambhir Singh for a period of five days till 15.12.84, he was remanded to judicial custody on 15.12.84 and a prayer for holding TIP was submitted to the SDM/IE on 19.12.84. It is also ascertained that the TIP was held on 14.1.1985, i.e., after about four months from the date of occurrence and after about one month from the date of remanding the accused to judicial custody. No explanation or reason is given as to why the TIP was held after more than one month from the date of arrest of the said accused and not within a few days of the arrest. No explanation or reason is given as to why the TIP was held after more than one month from the date of arrest of the said accused and not within a few days of the arrest. Since human memory is apt to get dulled with passage of time and as such though, there is no law to the effect that delay by itself nullifies an identification, there is need to hold the TIP without delay. When the TIP is found to have been held with delay as done in the present case, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain for it and in the absence of a reasonable explanation, the value of the said TIP will be detracted. 11. Another vital factor in determining the value of the TIP is the effectiveness of the precaution taken by those responsible for holding it against identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the person to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the identification of the accused concerned. There is no presumption that the necessary precautions must have been taken and it is always for the prosecution to prove that they were in fact taken. In the present case, no evidence is produced to show as to what measures were taken in connection with precaution required to be taken in order to ensure that the said accused Gambhir Singh was not shown or seen by the concerned witnesses. 12. The testimony of the Executive Magistrate (PW No. 6), who conducted the TIP is not also of the nature who inspires confidence. At the relevant time, he (PW-6) was not having any earlier experience of conducting TIP and he cannot say if the witnesses identified the said Gambhir Singh at the very first attempt or not. He (PW-6) admits that he made no attempt to exclude any case of chance identification by making re-arrangement of the accused persons and re-checking the memory of the witnesses. Further, he (PW-6) admits that the I.O. of the case was with him at the time of holding the TIP. The presence of the I.O. at the time of holding the TIP will affect the value of the said identification by the witnesses in the said TIP. Further, he (PW-6) admits that the I.O. of the case was with him at the time of holding the TIP. The presence of the I.O. at the time of holding the TIP will affect the value of the said identification by the witnesses in the said TIP. The principle underlying the exclusion of the police from the TIP is two folds; to remove the undue influence of the prosecuting or investigating agency on the identifying witnesses and secondly to comply with the provisions of Sec. 162 of the Cr.P.C. which is effect prohibits the conduct of identification parade by police officers. Moreover, PW-6 testifies that during the TIPs, the accused Gambhir Singh raised specific objection that he was earlier shown to the witnesses at Imphal Police station on 29.11.84. PW No. 3 also states that she went to the police station. When the above said testimonies are taken along with the absence of any evidence from the concerned I.O. to show that necessary precautionary measures were taken not to allow the witnesses show the accused before the TIP, we are of the opinion that there are reasonable doubt about the reliability of the said TIP. Furthermore, as per testimony of the PW-6, the two accused were paraded with 15 other persons in the said TIP. On the other hand, PW-4 says contrary to what others say that there are 30 persons lined up in the TIP. Since the identification parade is a test for eliminating false assertions and to guard against honest mistake of the witnesses, it should be held under conditions most conducive to its being fair test for the elicitation of truth. To eliminate the reasonable possibility of chance identification and to make the result of identification acceptable, proper care is to be taken regarding number of under trials/other persons to be mixed with the suspect. In Empire v. Chandammi, AIR 1936 All. 373, it was observed : “In cases in which there is only one or two suspects to be put for identification, the proportion of 1 to 5 cannot be regarded as satisfactory. In Empire v. Chandammi, AIR 1936 All. 373, it was observed : “In cases in which there is only one or two suspects to be put for identification, the proportion of 1 to 5 cannot be regarded as satisfactory. There should be at least 10 under trials for each suspect in such cases because every effort should be made to minimize the possibility of a chance which in the first instance can be done by mixing as many persons as possible with the suspect who is put up for identification.” Again as in Satya Narain v. State, AIR 1953 All. 385 , it was laid down that “the proper way to hold identification proceeding is to put up each suspect separately for identification mixed with as much number of innocent men as possible, in any case, not less than 9 or 10.” While we would not like to make a categorical observation that the ratio of 7 or 8 to 1 in the case of two suspects as done in this case, ipso facto, destroys the result of identification, we feel no hesitation in observing that it considerably diminishes the value of the identification. 13. In the light of the above considerations, we are of the opinion that the testimony regarding the said identification of the accused, Gambhir Singh by the two witnesses (PW No. 3 and PW No. 4) in the said TIP is not reliable to serve as corroborative of their testimony regarding identification of the said accused (appellant0 before the court as the unknown person who called out the deceased Marjit Singh in that night. There is, thus, no guarantee of truth in respect of the said testimony regarding identification of the accused Gambhir Singh (appellant) given by the two witnesses before the court during the trial after about 8 years of the occurrence. In the absence of corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding, the said testimony of PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 identifying the said accused Gambhir Singh (appellant) as the unknown person who called out the deceased about years ago is not, as already observed, believable. It is to be noted that as per evidence of PW No. 3 and PW No. 4, they saw the unknown person only for some minutes in the said night. It is to be noted that as per evidence of PW No. 3 and PW No. 4, they saw the unknown person only for some minutes in the said night. One cannot reasonably believe that the PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 could remember the body peculiarities of the said unknown person even after 8 years from the date of occurrence unless the said witnesses are persons blessed with extraordinary vision & prodigious memory but there is no evidence to show that the said witnesses are persons having the said extraordinary power. 14. In view of the above findings, there is no need of discussing the remaining evidence which do not say anything about the involvement of the present appellant in the said crime. No incriminating article was also seized from the possession of the present appellant. Our considered opinion is that in the absence of any corroboration, it is not safe to rely on the said testimony of PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 identifying the present appellant as the unknown person who called out the deceased in the night about 8 years ago. The defects and infirmities in the testimonies of the said PW No. 3 and PW No. 4 which are pointed out by this court in Cril.(Jail) Appeal No. 5/2002 will also give benefit of doubt in favour of the present appellant. The manner in which the crime was committed in undoubtedly reprehensible and pathetic but in the absence of satisfactory evidence establishing the guilt of the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the charge as against him is to be held as not proved. Since the evidence adduced against the present appellant is not satisfactory, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists him and compels this court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order by which the present appellant was convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence u/s 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The conviction and sentence passed against the present appellant are hereby set aside. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The present appellant is acquitted of the charge for the commission of the offence u/s 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC. The conviction and sentence passed against the present appellant are hereby set aside. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The present appellant is acquitted of the charge for the commission of the offence u/s 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC. He is to be released immediately if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Necessary steps be taken. Trial court records be returned to the concerned court with a copy of this Judgment. I agree.