R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Taking exception to the respondent's acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 447, 302 read with section 149 and 302 read with section 114 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the respondents are as under: Victim Vithoba Dhondiba Deshkar had gone with labourers to his field on 20-07-1988 for weeding operation. The accused persons assaulted Vithoba with axes and other weapons and inflicted severe injuries on him. His wife Babybai gave a report to the police, whereupon offence was registered. Police came to the spot, saw the dead body of Vithoba, conducted the panchanama of spot and inquest, sent dead body for Post-Morten1 examination and recorded statements of witnesses. In course of investigation, police arrested respondents, seized their clothes, interrogated them, effected seizure of incriminating articles, and on completion of investigation, sent charge-sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chahdrapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Chandrapur. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, to whom the case was made over, charged the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148,447, 302 read with section 149 and 302 read with section 114 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, were put on trial before the learned Judge. 4. The prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of denial taken by the respondents, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, came to acquit all the respondents. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Advocate Kankale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Shri. Anil S. Mardikar for the respondents/accused. With the help of both the learned counsel we have examined the evidence on record in order to find out whether the acquittal of the respondents could be reversed on the grounds made in the memo of appeal and expounded by the learned A.P.P. before us. 6. Of the eighteen witnesses examined before the Trial Court, P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang & P.W.No.5 Baliram are the eye-witnesses to the incident P.W.No.16 Dr. Dhote conducted post-mortem examination and also examined weapon which had been referred to him. Dr. 6. Of the eighteen witnesses examined before the Trial Court, P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang & P.W.No.5 Baliram are the eye-witnesses to the incident P.W.No.16 Dr. Dhote conducted post-mortem examination and also examined weapon which had been referred to him. Dr. Dhote found that the victim had three lacerations; ten contusions and three injuries of piercing with pointed object. These injuries led to haemorrhage as also fracture of ribs. According to Dr. Dhote the cause of death was "cardiovascular failure due to multiple haemorrhage with brain, brain stem haemorrhage with lacerated wound of right kidney and fracture of ribs". Dr. Dhote also found that the weapon which had been referred to him, namely, a stick and Tutya (a stick having a pointed nail at one end) could have caused injuries on the victim. Evidence of Dr. Dhote and P.W.No.6 Nilkanth, Pancha at inquest and panchanama vide Exhibit no.36 would clearly show that the victim met with death on account of homicidal injuries inflicted upon him. 7. P.W.No.1 Babybai, victim's widow, and P.W.No.12 Saibai, victim's daughter, are not eye-witness to the incident. P.W.No.13 Dayaram stated about Vithoba's possession over the field. Evidence of P.W.No.1 Babybai would show that there disputes between the accused and the victim about the possession bf the field and that the accused had instituted civil proceedings against the victim. P.W.11 Nathu Vithoba Bawane had no contribution to make to connect the accused to the crime. He is from village Shivra. He stated that accused Sheshrao himself came in his presence to P.W.2 Nathu Ganesh Waghmare, Police Patil and informed him about Vithoba's murder. P.W.2 Nathu Waghmare, Police Patil; also stated that Sheshrao informed him about Vithoba's murder und gave a report to the police vide Exhibit No.25. Since disclosure was allegedly made by accused Sheshrao to Nathu Waghmare (P.W.2) who was Police Patil, the confessional part of disclosure is inadmissible. Thus, except that Vithoba had been killed nothing more can be deducted from the evidence of P.W.2 Nathu Waghamare and P.W.11 Nathu Bawane. 8. As already recounted, the accused persons are from village Shivra and complainant Babybai wd/o Vithoba, P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram are all from village Amboli. They had been engaged by Vithoba in weeding operation at village Shivra. There is nothing to indicate that these witnesses knew accused persons since before the incident. 8. As already recounted, the accused persons are from village Shivra and complainant Babybai wd/o Vithoba, P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram are all from village Amboli. They had been engaged by Vithoba in weeding operation at village Shivra. There is nothing to indicate that these witnesses knew accused persons since before the incident. The evidence of P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram would show that the assailants were from Village Shivra. It was principally because the assailants were not known to these three witnesses from neighbouring village that a test identification parade was required to be held. P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar claimed to have named the assailants in his statement before the police but could not explain as to why his statement did not contain those names. P.W.No.4 Pandurang was categorical that he had not seen the accused persons before the incident. P.W.No.5 Baliram stated that he knew the accused as residents of Shivra, but admitted that he had not told the name of assailants to P.W.No.1 Babybai. The evidence of these three witnesses would show that the assailants were not known to the three witnesses. 9. Test identification parade was conducted by P.W.No.17 Dy. Collector, Shri. Atram in presence of Panch Gopal who has examined as P.W.No.15. At the test identification parade, the three witnesses P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram are stated to have identified the assailants. P.W.No.3 Rajeshwar stated that he and the accused persons were called in the Tahsil Office at Chimur about a month after the incident for identification parade and were made to sit in Varandah. The identification parade, however, was not held on that day and was conducted after a week in Chandrapur Jail. Thus, if the witnesses had seen the accused before identification parade, the entire significance of the parade was lost. P.W.No.17 Dy. Collector, Shri. Atram, who conducted the parade, however, denied that the accused had been produced before him at Chimur, before the parade was held in the Jail at Chandrapur. 10. P.W.No.4 Pandurang stated that he, Rajeshwar and Baliram were called in jail for the purpose of identification parade. He stated that Rajeshwar (P.W.3) identified the accused first, whereas he then identified the same persons. 10. P.W.No.4 Pandurang stated that he, Rajeshwar and Baliram were called in jail for the purpose of identification parade. He stated that Rajeshwar (P.W.3) identified the accused first, whereas he then identified the same persons. It is implicit in his statement that he knew the persons who had been identified by P.W.3 Rajeshwar and consequently, that he was present or was able to see the persons to whom Rajeshwar was identifying. P.W.S Baliram stated that Pandurang (P. W.4) identified the assailants first then he identified the same persons who were identified by Pandurang again implying that he was able to see Pandurang identifying the persons at identification parade. 11. P.W.No.15 Gopal, was the Panch at the identification parade, record whereof proved by him at exhibit no.62 & 63. He stated that there were 30 to 35 persons standing in a row. The accused were asked to take their places in that row. He also said that parade for the female accused was also held similarly. He said that accused changed their places on 4 to 5 occasions and also changed their clothes. He stated that even the female accused changed their clothes on 2 to 4 occasions, and surprisingly, without going out from place where the parade was held P.W.No.17 Dy. Collector, Shri. Atram, however, had different story to tell. He stated that he had made 34 prisoners stand in a row and then curiously stated that he had asked the accused persons to take place in a row of 10 persons each. How he managed to convert one row of 34 into rows of 10 persons each is really not known. He proved, memorandum of procedure followed by him which is at exhibit No.68. He categorically stated that the accused persons neither changed their places nor their clothes, contradicting the version of P. W.No.15 Panch Gopal. Memorandum of proceeding at exhibit no.68 however, shows in para no.9 accused had changed their place and clothes. Thus, the evidence about test of identification parade is contradictory and does not inspire confidence of truthfulness. Therefore, identification of accused as assailants of Vithoba by P. W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge as doubtful. Moreover, the account of incident given by the witnesses is riddled with contradiction and omissions reducing the reliability of their versions. Therefore, identification of accused as assailants of Vithoba by P. W.No.3 Rajeshwar, P.W.No.4 Pandurang and P.W.No.5 Baliram was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge as doubtful. Moreover, the account of incident given by the witnesses is riddled with contradiction and omissions reducing the reliability of their versions. The contradiction and omissions at exhibit nos.74 to 77 were duly proved by P.W.No.I8 and P.S.I. Ramrao Kalambe in his deposition. 12. P.W.No.7 Dewaji and P.W.No.8 Dhondu, the witnesses on seizure of clothes of accused vide exhibits 34 to 36 and sample of blood vide exhibit 37 have not supported the prosecution. Similarly, P.W.No.10 Vithoba, who was supposed to witness memorandum and seizure vide exhibits no.40 to 43 at the instance of accused No.1 Patru and accused no.2 Ashok, did not support the prosecution. P.W.No.9 Madhukar, the other witness on same memoranda and seizure was initially hesitant to state about the disclosure and resultant seizure. He was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined. Thereafter he changed his tune. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he might have appeared as a Panch on couple of occasions making him a stock witness and reducing the evidential value of his statement. 13. The evidence of other witnesses examined, namely P.W.No.12 Saibai daughter of victim; P.W.No.13 Dayaram, who spoke about Vithoba's possession and P.W.No.14 the Revenue Inspector (Retired) Shri. Samarth, does not help in connecting the accused to the crime. 14. We thus find that the learned Trial Judge rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the complicity of the respondents/accused in Vithoba's murder or in formation of unlawful assembly with the object to commit such murder and allied offences of trespass etc. Since the view taken by the learned trial Judge is thus plausible, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents/accused shall stand cancelled.