JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Both these Appeals under Section 378 (1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (Cr.P.C. for short) have been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the common judgment and order dated 29th December 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 303 and 116 of 2005, whereby, the respondents are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) read with Section 25(1)(A)(B) of the Arms Act. 2. In the backdrop of the case of prosecution, pursuant to registration of FIR with Godhara Town Police Station, being I-CR No. 364 of 2003 for the offence; as above, investigation was carried out and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed and submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhara and upon committal, the cases were numbered as Sessions Case No. 303/2004 and 116/2005, which resulted into acquittal of the respondents at the end of trial. 3. Complainant, a resident of Vrundavan Society, Bamroli Road, Godhara in the night of 31st January 2003 when was sitting with his family around 2:30 hours late night, found six persons armed with weapons like knife, entered his house and threatened them with dire consequences, if key of their cup-board is not handed over. By intimidating the complainant and his family members and under threat to life, the respondents-accused committed robbery by taking away silver utensils, gold chains, revolver and such other items and cash amount. The robbers were described by their appearance and clothes worn by them, having age between 25 to 30 years, who had entered into the house of the complainant by removing iron grill of the window. Initially, investigating agency filed "A" summary which was objected to by the complainant and thereafter, an order was passed on 13th July 2004 rejecting the summary application. It is undisputed case of prosecution that the accused confessed the crime before the Police on 19th July 2004 in which names of co-accused were also declared. Based on the above statement of accused No. 2 dated 19th July 2004 given before the Police, accused Nos. 1 & 3 came to be arrested. It is undisputed case of prosecution that the accused confessed the crime before the Police on 19th July 2004 in which names of co-accused were also declared. Based on the above statement of accused No. 2 dated 19th July 2004 given before the Police, accused Nos. 1 & 3 came to be arrested. During the course of investigation, no recovery or discovery is made of the muddamal articles of theft and by transfer warrant, accused No. 4 came to be arrested on 25th August 2004. 3.1 Thus, the case on hand has two eye witnesses viz., complainant and his daughter and other evidence in the form of testimony of Executive Magistrate who carried out Test Identification Parade and that of Investigating Officer. 4. Ms. Moxa Thakker, learned APP would contend that the complainant had identified the accused who committed robbery when electricity light was on and description of robbers by their physic, age and clothes worn by them was made by the complainant. Besides, procedure as expected for test identification parade was followed by the Executive Magistrate and minor lacunae ought not to have weighed with the learned trial Judge, when the complainant himself and his daughter in their testimonies reiterated their version before the Police and therefore, such testimonies are trustworthy and inspires confidence, and therefore reliable. It is further submitted that simply because no recovery or discovery is made is not ground to reject the case of prosecution, when other attending circumstances; including criminal antecedents of the accused in involvement of similar crime surfaces on the record. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned common judgment and order under challenged in these Appeals deserve to be quashed and set-aside and the Appeals be allowed accordingly. 5. Mr. V.B Kundan Singh, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, however, would contend that acquittal order passed by the learned trial Judge is based on sound reasonings given after appreciating the evidence. He urged that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge by assigning reasons on finding no guilt of the accused deserves no interference for the reason that TI parade contain full of lacunae and no precaution was taken about identity of the accused is not disclosed. He urged that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge by assigning reasons on finding no guilt of the accused deserves no interference for the reason that TI parade contain full of lacunae and no precaution was taken about identity of the accused is not disclosed. Besides, accused were shown prior to identification parade to the witnesses and panchas have not support the T.I. parade and the correction carried out in the panchnama, no initials were put by the Executive Magistrate. According to him, testimonies of eye witnesses viz., complainant and his daughter suffers from vice of contradictions and material discrepancies, as it appears from the record of the case that in fact, there were five members in the family and they were present on the day of the incident, but prosecution had chosen to rely on complainant and his daughter. It is further submitted that even complainant and his daughter are not able to specifically state anything about the manner in which crime was committed, namely which accused has played what role and that lack of description about the place in the house where crime was committed. In addition to above, admitted facts emerge on the record about confession recorded by the Police and the cause in which other co-accused were named and one co-accused was arrested pursuant to transfer warrant speaks volume about the manner in which the investigation was carried out. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Singh placed reliance upon a decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Iqbal & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1663 of 2012, Decided on 6th May 2015). It further emerges from the record that "A" summary was filed at the end of investigation at the instance of objection raised by the complainant, further investigation was carried out in which confession as such was recorded. It is therefore submitted that the present appeals deserve to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record; including the judgment under challenge, the whole investigation of the crime initially resulted into no material outcome, and therefore, "A" summary was filed. Even after investigation was handed over to an Officer of the rank of Dy. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record; including the judgment under challenge, the whole investigation of the crime initially resulted into no material outcome, and therefore, "A" summary was filed. Even after investigation was handed over to an Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. the only material is available is the confession recorded of the accused which forms the basis of arrest of other co-accused, which is not permissible under the law of evidence. Apt it would be, to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Iqbal & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra), which read thus:- "15. Evidence of identification of the miscreants in the test identification parade is not a substantive evidence. Conviction cannot be based solely on the identify of the dacoits by the witnesses in the test identification parade. The prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence by establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the crime, like recovery of articles which are the subject matter of dacoity and the alleged weapons used in the commission of the offence. 16. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, no recovery of articles which are the subject of dacoity was made from the appellants or other non appealing accused persons. In his complaint, PW-1 gave a list enumerating fifty expensive items, such as gold jewellery, silver articles, sarees and clothes and also cash. As per the recovery memo, what was recovered was just three kilograms of ghee in a clay pot. In his deposition, PW 8-Nepal Singh (Investigating Officer) has stated that at the instance of Kripa, he had recovered a 'chaptaghu' and an 'attire'. However, in the recovery memo, only three kilogram of ghee is mentioned which is said to have been recovered on the disclosure statement of accused Kripa. From the appellants as well as from the non-appealing accused persons, not a single item of valuable out of the whole list of stolen articles was recovered. It is quite unbelievable that within a short span of time i.e., from 21.09.1979 (date of incident) to 9.10.1979 (date of arrest), the accused would have converted or sold out all the valuable items. It is quite unbelievable that within a short span of time i.e., from 21.09.1979 (date of incident) to 9.10.1979 (date of arrest), the accused would have converted or sold out all the valuable items. Even if we accept that they have done so, the prosecution ought to have adduced evidence as to how and in what manner the articles which were the subject matter of dacoity were either disposed of or converted. Murder and robbery were part of the same transaction. Consequent upon the disclosure statement, only three kilograms of ghee was recovered." 6.1 Moreover, the learned trial Judge has noticed material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of complainant and his daughter and admittedly, the T.I. parade and panchnama being corroborative piece of evidence cannot be relied on for conviction of the accused, even if such evidence has been proved. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, panchnama of T.I parade is not proved and witnesses have ample opportunity to see the accused and no precaution was taken to keep their identify intact, free from any lacunae. 7. In addition to above, no recovery or discovery of the articles/muddamal was made and under the circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Judge of acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be a view not permissible or possible, warranting any interference. 8. Resultantly, the present Appeals fail and are accordingly, dismissed. Bailable warrants issued against concerned respondents stand discharged. Appeal Dismissed.