JUDGMENT H. BILLAPPA, J.-This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and order dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi, in S.C. No. 97/2001. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable U/Ss.120(B), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant-State has filed this appeal. 4. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is: That the accused No. 5-Vishwanath Shetty was demanding haftha from the deceased-Prabhakar Acharya. When A5 was unable to extort money from the deceased Prabhakar Acharya, A5 along with the other accused hatched conspiracy to kill the deceased. On 17.05.2001, at about 7.45 or 8.00 p.m. the accused Nos. 1 and 2 suddenly entered the shop of deceased Prabhakar Acharya and shot him dead and ran away from the spot and escaped in a car. 5. Based on the statement of PW1, a case in Crime No. 153/01 of Udupi Town police station has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 6. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 7. At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 34 witnesses and Exhibits P1 to Ex.P.68(a) and MOs.1 to 29 have been marked. 8. A4 has died during the pendency of the proceedings and the case against him has abated. A6 has been discharged. A5 has absconded and the case against him has been spilt up. The case is tried only against A1 to A3. 9. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable U/Ss.120(B), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 10. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant-State has filed this appeal. 11. Sri. P.M. Nawaz, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor contended that the impugned Judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. 10. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant-State has filed this appeal. 11. Sri. P.M. Nawaz, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor contended that the impugned Judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 who are eye witnesses and the evidence of PW 31 clearly establishes the guilt against the accused. He also submitted that the opinion of the ballistic expert shows that the weapon was used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. 12. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record and taking into consideration that there is no description of the accused in the FIR, T.I parade was not proper and the evidence of the witnesses is totally inconsistent has acquitted the accused and therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Appellate Court cannot lightly interfere with the findings recorded in the trial Court unless they are perverse. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the impugned judgment and order calls for interference? 15. The death was homicidal is not in dispute. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and PW.31 who is the ballistic expert. PW1 has deposed that he was working as salesman in the shop of the deceased Prabhakar Acharya. On 17.5.01 at about 7.45 or 8 p.m. when he was in the shop along with the others namely Varadaraju, Lakshmana and daughters of the deceased, two persons suddenly entered the shop and fired shot at the deceased and ran away from the spot. PW-1 chased the accused persons. But the accused persons escaped in a car. PW-1 has identified A1 in the Court. 16. PW-1 chased the accused persons. But the accused persons escaped in a car. PW-1 has identified A1 in the Court. 16. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that the photo of A1 was published in the news paper on the next day itself. After some time, the photo of A1 was shown to him in the police station. Thereafter, after 15 days, he was taken to Bombay and A1 was apprehended. He has denied the suggestion that no articles were seized from A1. 17. Similarly PW2 has deposed that on 17.5.01 at about 7.45 p.m. when he was in the shop, at about 8.00 p.m., two unknown persons came to the shop with revolver and fired shots at the deceased and escaped in a car. On 18.6.01, he identified A1 in the police station. On 25.6.01, the photo of A2 was shown to him in the office of CPI and he identified A-2. On 21.1.2002, he identified A2 in the test identification parade. 18. Similarly PW5 who is the daughter of the deceased has deposed that on 17.5.01 at 7.45 p.m. when she was in shop, at about 8.00 p.m. A1 and A2 came to the shop and with revolvers they fired shots at her father and ran away. PWs1 and 2 chased the accused. The accused escaped in a Maruthi car. On 18.6.01, A1 was shown in the police station and she identified A1. On 25.6.01, a photo was shown to her in the office of Circle Inspector. She identified the person in the photo as one of the accused who fired shot at her father. On 21.1.2002, in the test identification parade she identified A2. 19. Similarly PW6 who is another daughter of the deceased Prabhakar Acharya has deposed that at 8.00 p.m. the accused came and shot at her father and ran away and escaped in a car. On 18.06.01, she identified A1 in the office of the Police Inspector. Thereafter, after about one week, she was called to the office of police inspector and photo of A2 was shown and she identified the person in the photo as one of the accused who fired shot at her father. On 21.1.2002, in the T.I. parade she identified A2. 20. Thereafter, after about one week, she was called to the office of police inspector and photo of A2 was shown and she identified the person in the photo as one of the accused who fired shot at her father. On 21.1.2002, in the T.I. parade she identified A2. 20. PW7 who was working as salesman has deposed that at about 8 p.m. on the date of incident two persons fired shots at the deceased Prabhakar Acharya and ran away. On 18.06.2001 he identified A1 in the office of the Police inspector. On 25.06.2001, he was called to the office of Police inspector and photo of A2 was shown and he identified the person in the photo as one of the accused who fired shot at the deceased Prabhakar Acharya. On 21.1.2002, in the TI parade he identified A2. 21. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 it is clear that two unknown persons have entered the shop and fired shots at the deceased Prabhakar Acharya and ran away from the spot and escaped in a car. In the FIR-Ex.P.1, the description of the accused is not given. The number of the car is also not given. However, colour of the car is given as 'red'. In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that A1's photo was published in the news paper on the very next day of the incident itself and he was called to the police station after about one month and photo of A1 was shown to him and he identified the person in the photo as one of the persons who had come to the shop on the date of incident. Thereafter, after about 15 days, he was taken to Bombay and A1 was apprehended and recovery was made. Insofar as A2 is concerned, the witnesses have deposed that photo of A2 was shown to them in the office of police inspector. It is not clear, how photo of A1 was published in the news paper on the very next day of the incident itself. The Investigating Officer-PW30 has stated that he came about the involvement of A1 only when A3 has been arrested. A3 has been arrested on 20.05.2001. The description of the accused is not given in the complaint. No test identification parade has been conducted in respect of A1. The Investigating Officer-PW30 has stated that he came about the involvement of A1 only when A3 has been arrested. A3 has been arrested on 20.05.2001. The description of the accused is not given in the complaint. No test identification parade has been conducted in respect of A1. PW1 has deposed that photo of A1 was published in the news paper on the very next day of the incident itself and photo of A1 was shown to him in the police station. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in holding that identification of A1 is doubtful and not proper. 22. PWs.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 have deposed that photograph of A2 was shown to them in the police station before T.I. parade was conducted. The FIR does not contain the name, description or addresses of the accused. Item No. 13.63(1) & (2) of Karnataka Police Manual reads as follows: "(1) Photographs of certain classes of criminals for, instance, professional prisoners, are maintained in District Crime Record Bureau. Photographs exist also for dossier criminals. Witnesses may be shown the photographs and asked to identify. In case where criminals are identified through photographs, a regular identification parade should also be held after the apprehension of the accused. (2) When identification is sought to be made through photographs, single and individual photographs should not be shown to witnesses, possible, among which should be the suspect's photograph, should be shown to the witnesses, who should be asked to pick out from among them the suspect's photograph, if it is there." 23. It is clear, when identification is sought to be made through photographs, the single and individual photograph should not be shown to the witnesses. Photographs along with suspect's photograph should be shown to the witnesses who should be asked to pick out from among them the suspect's photograph. 24. In the present case, PWs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 have deposed that they were shown photograph of A2 only. Thereafter, the T.I. parade has been conducted. The mandatory requirement as provided under Karnataka Police Manual has not been followed. Therefore, the identification of A2 loses its significance. The finding of the trial Court that identification of A1 and A2 is shrouded with doubt and not proper is correct. 25. Exhibits P44 and P63 are the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. The mandatory requirement as provided under Karnataka Police Manual has not been followed. Therefore, the identification of A2 loses its significance. The finding of the trial Court that identification of A1 and A2 is shrouded with doubt and not proper is correct. 25. Exhibits P44 and P63 are the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. It is opined at Ex.P44(a) that the bullets in Article No. X have been fired through the revolver in Article No. V. Article No. V is .380 caliber six chambered revolver seized from A2. In Ex. P. 63 it is opined that the bullets in Article Nos. G, H & O have not been fired through revolver in Article No. Q. Article No. Q is revolver seized from A1. While it is true, in Ex.P.44, it is opined that bullets have been fired from revolver in Article No. V. In the absence of proper identification of the accused, the evidence of the Ballistic Expert cannot be of any consequence. There is no material on record against A3. Therefore, in our considered view, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.