By Court.- The appellants were arrayed as A-3, A-2, A-7, A-5 and A-6 respectively before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka alongwith three other accused, A-1, A-4 and A-8. They were charged under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that while committing dacoity in the house of Suku Marandi, PW-8, they caused the death of Munnu Soren, who was the servant of Suku Marandi, when he intervened, by throwing a bomb. The Trial Judge, on the evidence adduced, while acquitting Neeruddin Sk., A-1, Jyotin Murmu, A-4 and Walang Mahli, A-8, found the appellants guilty and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal. 2. In this judgment, the acquitted accused and the appellants will be referred as A-1 to A-8, in the same order, as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge, for the sake of convenience. 3. On 3.4.1986 at about 6.00 p.m., PW-8, Suku Marandi, was in the house and his wife, Dular Baski, PW-3, was cooking meals. At that time, all the accused entered the house and removed utensils, radio, ornaments, clothes and cash of Rs. 100/-. They were heard speaking Hindi. On seeing this, Munnu Soren, the deceased, attempted to prevent them and one of the accused threw a bomb, as a result of which Munnu Soren suffered an injury and died sometime thereafter. The witnesses, namely, PW-3, the wife of PW-8, PW-5, the another servant of PW-8 as well as PW-8 saw the faces of the accused with the help of earthen lamp which was burning in the house. Thereafter, Fardbayan, Ext. 4, was given at the police station, which was registered as an FIR, Ext. 5. Investigation was taken up, during which inquest was conducted and the body was sent for post mortem by the Investigating Officer with a requisition. 4. On receipt of the requisition, PW-1, Dr. S.S. Daruka, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Munnu Soren and he found a lacerated wound 12" x 10" x bone deep over back of the chest extending from right infrascapular region down to sacra coxigial joint. Surface of the wound was found to be dotted with black spots and surrounding area was charred black. On dissection, the doctor found fracture of all the lumber and sacral vertebrae. On further dissection, the doctor noticed laceration of spinal cord. Surface of the wound was found to be dotted with black spots and surrounding area was charred black. On dissection, the doctor found fracture of all the lumber and sacral vertebrae. On further dissection, the doctor noticed laceration of spinal cord. The doctor also noticed lacerated injury in the abdominal cavity affecting right lobe of the liver and right kidney. The doctor issued Ext. 1, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death is on account of shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries and the said injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 5. During the course of investigation, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were arrested and the other accused A-3, A-2, A-1 and A-8, who were attested in connection with some other case, were also remanded in this case. The Investigating Officer gave a requisition to the Magistrate, requesting him to conduct a test identification parade. 6. On receipt of requisition, PW-2, Manoj Kumar Verma, Judicial Magistrate, Dumka conducted test identification parade in respect of A-4 (acquitted accused), A-5, A-6 and A-7 on 8.5.1986. On the said date, PWs-3, 5 and 8 identified all the accused. Thereafter, on 5.7.1986, the learned Magistrate conducted another test identification parade in respect of A-1 and A-8 (both acquitted accused) as well as A2 and A-3. PW-3 identified A-3 and A-2 and PW-8 identified all the accused but PW-5 could not identify anyone. Exts. 2 and 3 are the test identification charts, prepared by the Magistrate in respect of test identification parade conducted by him on the above two dates. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed. 7. When the accused-appellants were questioned, they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not examine any other witness on their side. 8. Mr. Binod Singh, appearing as Amicus Curiae, on being appointed by this Court, submits that the trial court ought not to have accepted the evidence of PWs3, 5 and 8 on the aspect of their identifying the accused-appellants for finding them guilty. He further submits that in the absence of any other evidence, the Trial Judge was riot justified in convicting the accused/appellants, especially, in view of the background of the evidence of PW-3. 9. We have heard Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, learned A.P.P. on the above contention. 10. He further submits that in the absence of any other evidence, the Trial Judge was riot justified in convicting the accused/appellants, especially, in view of the background of the evidence of PW-3. 9. We have heard Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, learned A.P.P. on the above contention. 10. There can be no dispute that on 3.4.1986, the deceased, Munnu Soren, died on account of an explosion of bomb. The doctor, PW-1, who conducted autopsy and who issued the post mortem certificate conclusively establish the said fact. 11. The prosecution, in the trial court, in order to establish that the appellants committed the dacoity during which the deceased died, relied upon the evidence of PW-3, the wife of the informant (PW-8), PW-5 as well as on the evidence of PW-8. The evidence of PWs-3, 5 and 8 shows that at 6.00 p.m. on 3.4.1986, when PW-3 was cooking meals and PW-8 was in the house, some persons entered the house and thereafter started taking away the properties. The deceased intervened and a bomb was thrown at him, as a result of which he suffered injury and died. The evidence of the witnesses is to the effect that they were able to see the faces of the accused as an earthen lamp was burning in the house. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the arrest of appellants, test identification parade was conducted by PW-2, the Judicial Magistrate, on 8.5.1986 as well as on 5.7.1986 and that during the course of test identification parade, on the above two dates, the witnesses have identified the accused, except PW-5 who could not identity A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 on 5.7.1986. 12. Now, we have to consider whether the witnesses could have identified the accused at the test identification parade without the help of any other external source. 13. When PW-3 was cross-examined, she admitted that after the arrest of the accused, she was taken to the police station and she was accompanied by her husband, PW-8 and her servant, PW-5. She went on to admit that at the police station, all the accused were shown to them and later they went to the test identification parade and identified. When PW-3 was cross-examined, she admitted that after the arrest of the accused, she was taken to the police station and she was accompanied by her husband, PW-8 and her servant, PW-5. She went on to admit that at the police station, all the accused were shown to them and later they went to the test identification parade and identified. This answer of PW-3 is, therefore, clear to show that before the test identification parade was conducted, PWs-3, 5 and 8 were taken to the police station by the police and the accused/appellants were shown to the witnesses. In this background, we find it difficult to accept the evidence of prosecution witness that they have identified the accused for the first time at the test identification parade conducted on 8.5.1986 and 5.7.1986 without the help of any external source. 14. It is no doubt true that PW-5 did not identify any of the accused on 5.7.1986 but from this fact alone, it cannot be said that they were not taken to the police station by the police to show the-accused, so that the witnesses could identify the accused at the Parade. It is to be remembered that some persons have poor memory as regards the faces and PW-5 being an illiterate and hence could not have had good memory to remember the faces of all the accused, in spite of his being shown the accused at the police station. 15. On the admission of PW-3, we find it unsafe to hold that they identified the accused at the test identification parade and that the accused committed the offence of 396 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. In view of above discussion, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and, accordingly, the same is given to the appellants. 17. The appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is set aside. It is reported that the appellants are on bail; they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.