Judgment Ravi R.Tripathi, J.—The present appeal is notified at Serial Number 21 “for orders”. The remark column contains the following remark: “* B/W un-executed upon Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. As per report of Sessions Court, Navsari. (Only fax received) R & P and paper book received”. 2. On perusal of papers, it is noticed that the appeal was admitted by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: D.C. Gheewala & J.P. Desai, JJ. as they were then) by order dated 20th January, 1988. The order reads as under: “Leave granted. Appeal admitted. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.2000/- to issue against each of the accused”. It is this order of bailable warrant which has remained un-executed on all the Respondents i.e. 1 to 3. 3. It is painful that in the matter of 1987, bailable warrant issued by this Court on 20th January 1988 has remained un-executed. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to an order passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.M. Kapadia, as he then was and B.N. Mehta, JJ) dated 31st January, 2011. “....A perusal of the record of the case, it is seen on behalf of the appellant, Mahendrasinh H. Puwar, Police Sub-Inspector, Jalalpore Police Station, District-Navsari has filed an Affidavit, wherein it is stated that, the respondents are not residing permanently anywhere as they are regularly moving from one place to another for earning bread and they are not easily traceable, so for further inquiry, minimum two months period is required, which may be granted....” 4. Taking into consideration the age of the appeal, it is deemed fit to examine the matter on merits and therefore, we heard learned APP Mr. Pandya at length. Learned APP tried to assail the judgment and order dated 12.6.1987 passed in Sessions Case No.83 of 1986, whereby, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Criminal Procedure Code by giving them benefit of doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 395, 396 and 397 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 5. Learned APP vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the present accused is of very grave nature, inasmuch as the mother of the complainant was killed in the incident which took place on 13/14-8-85. 5. Learned APP vehemently submitted that the offences alleged against the present accused is of very grave nature, inasmuch as the mother of the complainant was killed in the incident which took place on 13/14-8-85. Learned APP also submitted that there was convincing evidence in the form of deposition of Bharatbhai, brother of the complainant and Meeraben, wife of Bharatbhai. 6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and the relevant documentary as well as oral evidence, this Court is of the opinion that learned Judge has not committed any error in recording acquittal of the present accused. In this regard, it is important to put it on record that the learned Judge has rightly answered issue No.1 in affirmative and has then focused his attention to issue No.2 and that focused attention is reflected in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and last but not least 31. 7. Learned Judge has also discussed the same aspect in Paragraph Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and then recorded a finding that it is not established by the prosecution that the present accused-three in number, were present in the incident of loot which took place on 13/14-8-1985. 8. In his threadbare analysis of the evidence on the point, the learned Judge has given convincing reasons for not believing the evidence of Meeraben and that of Bharatbhai. To illustrate some of the reasons for not believing the deposition of these two witnesses are: (i) Both witnesses have tried to improve upon their version not only from their statement before the police but even from the deposition in another sessions Case being Sessions Case No.72 of 1985. A Certified copy of deposition of Meeraben in Sessions Case No.72 of 1985 was placed before the learned Judge and though it was recorded in that deposition that, ‘except four persons, she has not seen any other persons’, she tried to depose before the Court that she had occasion to see these three accused who were standing on an ‘Otla’ (outside the house) from the window of her bed room. Distance between the witnesses and the accused was 10 to 15 feet. Distance between the witnesses and the accused was 10 to 15 feet. (ii) The learned Judge has also taken pain to notice and take appropriate note of the fact that Meeraben had numbered glasses and at night to identify a person who was seen from a distance of 10 to 15 feet that too without glasses may not be possible. (iii) Learned Judge has also noted and appreciated the fact that these accused were arrested from Village: Bhat, District: Gandhinagar on 9.7.1986 on the basis of available description while Navsari Police visited Village: Bhat in connection with the investigation of a ‘Crime’ registered as C.R. No.I-215 of 1986. These three accused were handed over to PSI, A.M. Rathod. Delay from 9.7.1986 to 16.7.1986 (16.7.1986 - the day on which identification parade was held) is not explained by the prosecution. (iv)(A) The learned Judge has very rightly appreciated the fact that identification parade took place on 16.7.1986. The time gap between the unfortunate incident and the identification parade was more than one year. The learned Judge has rightly posed a question to himself that whether a person having seen an accused for a while that too, at night from a window, at a distance of 10 to 15 feet that too while she was not having her numbered glasses on, can identify such persons after more than one year. The learned Judge has come to a right conclusion that the evidence of this witness on this point cannot be relied upon. (iv)(B) In this regard, it is equally important to note that Shri Rathod has deposed in his deposition that, ‘before the actual identification parade took place on 16.7.1986, the identification parade was scheduled on 13.7.1986 and thereafter on 15.7.1986 but for one or the other reason, it could not have been held’. (iv)(C) On the point of identification itself, the learned Judge has rightly considered that, these persons were taken to the place of offence on 10.7.1986 at around 2.00 p.m. because as per the prosecution, they wanted to show the place of offence, of their own wish. At that time, Panchnama was also drawn. Learned Judge has recorded that, Meeraben has admitted in her deposition that she knew about the arrest of the present accused. Though she has not admitted that, ‘the police had taken Meeraben and Nitinbhai to Jalalpur Police Station and had shown the present accused. At that time, Panchnama was also drawn. Learned Judge has recorded that, Meeraben has admitted in her deposition that she knew about the arrest of the present accused. Though she has not admitted that, ‘the police had taken Meeraben and Nitinbhai to Jalalpur Police Station and had shown the present accused. Similarly, the witness has deposed that, on 10.7.1986 when these accused were brought to her residence, ‘she had not seen them’ but then no material is placed on record to show that Meeraben was absent from her residence at the relevant time. (v) Learned Judge has rightly discarded the evidence led before the Court on the ground that there were material contradictions and thus the prosecution failed in proving the case against the accused. (vi) Howsoever, heinous the crime may be the basic requirement of connecting the accused with it cannot be dispensed with. It is settled principle of law that prosecution has to discharge its pious duty of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because, police arrested three persons on the basis of doubt, and according to them (police), they are answering the description available with them (police) cannot satisfy the requirement of proving the guilt with the help of convincing evidence. 9. Taking into consideration the overall evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Judge has not committed any error in recording acquittal. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. P P P P P