JUDGMENT 1. - The accused - appellants have preferred these separate appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 115/2011 (03/2009) whereby each of the appellants has been convicted for offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. As the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that for an incident occurring in the mid - night of 11.09.2001 and 12.09.2001 at the residential house of the complainant - Shri Surendra Singh, a written report was submitted before SHO Police Station Mandana to the effect that several unknown persons forcibly entered into their house and by using force and making threat to his sister and mother, who were present at the time of incident in the house, took away gold and silver ornaments and Rs. 2,000/ - in cash from their possession. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 100/2001 for offence under Section 392 IPC was registered and after investigation charge - sheet against the appellants was filed for offence under Section 395 IPC. During investigation the appellants were arrested and identification parade was also conducted and they were identified by PW7 - Sushila as the persons involved in the aforesaid incident. In support of the charge - levelled against the appellants, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants denied the evidence produced by the prosecution, but they did not produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the aforesaid judgment and order. 3. In support of the charge - levelled against the appellants, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants denied the evidence produced by the prosecution, but they did not produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the aforesaid judgment and order. 3. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the main evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the charge levelled against the appellants is the identification made by PW7 - Sushila during trial which was further corroborated by the identification of the appellants during identification parade conducted during investigation after arrest of the appellants, but this evidence is of no evidentiary value as this witness in her cross examination has admitted that the appellants were shown to her at the Police Station Nechhwa where they were present after their respective arrest. It was further submitted that the evidence of a witness based on, identification of an accused involved in such an incident during trial after a long period from the date of the incident is a weak type of evidence more particularly in view of the fact that the accused were not known to the witness prior to the alleged incident. It was also submitted that it is an admitted position that neither the cash nor the ornaments allegedly looted during the incident were recovered from the possession of any of the appellants. It was also contended that recovery of a knife at the instance of one of the accused - appellants namely - Shri Pappu during investigation allegedly used during the incident is also of no avail as there is no evidence produced showing that the recovered knife is the same which was used by him during the incident. 4. It was also contended that recovery of a knife at the instance of one of the accused - appellants namely - Shri Pappu during investigation allegedly used during the incident is also of no avail as there is no evidence produced showing that the recovered knife is the same which was used by him during the incident. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supporting the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court, submitted that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence available on record indicating participation of the present appellants in the aforesaid incident and, therefore, admission made by PW7 - Sushila during cross - examination is of no avail and her entire statement cannot be discarded only on that basis, more particularly in view of the tact that during her cross - examination she denied the suggestion that she identified the appellants as the persons involved in the incident during identification parade as well as the trial only by the reason that the appellants were shown to her at Police Station. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence produced by the prosecution during trial in support of the charge levelled against the appellants. 6. It is an admitted fact that appellants were not known to the prosecution witnesses prior to the incident and therefore they were not named as the persons involved in the FIR. Accused - appellants Shri Kedar, Shri Bhairuram, Shri Babulal and Shri Pappu were arrested in the present case on 29.09.2001 when they were in judicial custody in some other criminal case whereas accused - appellant Shri Birbal was arrested on 24.05.2005, but no evidence has been produced to show when and from where accused - appellant Shri Rakesh was arrested. According to prosecution, identification parade in regard to appellants Shri Pappu, Shri Kedar, Shri Bhairuram and Shri Babulal was conducted on 09.01.2001 and they were correctly identified by PW7- Sushila as the persons involved in the incident. 7. Similarly, identification parade in regard to accused-appellant Shri Birbal was conducted on 17.06.2005 and that of appellant Shri Rakesh was on 21.06.2001 and they were also correctly identified by the aforesaid witness. 7. Similarly, identification parade in regard to accused-appellant Shri Birbal was conducted on 17.06.2005 and that of appellant Shri Rakesh was on 21.06.2001 and they were also correctly identified by the aforesaid witness. It is pertinent to note that PW8 Shri Santosh was also present at the time of incident, but identification parade was not conducted from her and she also did not claim during trial that the appellants are same persons who were involved in the incident, therefore, her statement is irrelevant so far as the involvement of the appellants in the incident is concerned. Although, PW7 - Sushila correctly identified the appellants as the persons involved in the incident during identification parade as well as during trial, but at the same time she in clear words admitted in her cross examination that the appellants were shown to her when they were present at the Police Station Nechhwa. The relevant admission made by PW7 Sushila is as below:- " eqfYteku dks ?kVuk ds ckn loZizFke uSNok Fkkus ij ns[kk FkkA tks Fkkuk ij vkjke ls ns[k dj vk x;s FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd uSNok Fkkuk ij ns[k fy;k Fkk blfy, tSy ij ifgpku fy;k gksA uSNok Fkkus ij esjh eEeh vkSj lqjsUnz ugha x;s Fks] eSa vdsyh gh x;h tks Fkkusnkj th ysdj x;s FksA Fkkuk esa eqfYteku cfu;ku o dPNs esa cSBs Fks muds diM+s esjs dks fn[kk;s Fks eSaus mUgsa ns[kdj o ,d eqfYte }kjk oSlk gh dku dk vkHkw"k.k igus gq, gksuk tks eSaus igu j[kk Fkk bl dkj.k ifgpku fy;k FkkA e.Mkok Fkkus ge ugha x;s FksA ge tsy esa x;s FksA eSaus tc eqfYteku dks uSNok Fkkus ij ns[kk rc dPNs & cfu;ku ds vykok dqN ugha igu j[kk FkkA " 8. Although, the witness in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that she identified the appellants as the persons involved in the incident by the reason that they were shown to her at Police Station Nechhwa, but in view of the clear admission made by her in her cross - examination as already stated, I agree with the submission that the evidence relating to identification of appellants by the witness during identification parade as well 1 as during trial is of no evidentiary value and it cannot be made a basis to conclude that the appellants were the persons involved in the incident. So far as other evidence is concerned, it is an admitted fact that no recovery of cash and ornaments could be effected at the instance and possession of any of the s appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery of knife at the instance of one of the appellants Is also of no avail as there is no evidence available on record indicating that the recovered knife was the same which was used at the time of Incident. No other evidence could be produced by the prosecution in support of the charge levelled against the appellants, but the learned trial Court without considering the matter in a right perspective convicted and sentenced the appellants which is liable to be set aside in view of the findings arrived at by this Court. 9. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 Is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge 1 levelled against them. They are ordered to be set free Immediately, if not required in any other criminal case.Appeal allowed. *******