JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 15th March, 2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore in S.C. No. 502 of 2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted accused 2 and 5 of the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is relevant to note that totally seven accused were charge-sheeted in the present case. Among them four accused were juvenile offenders and hence they were tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. Out of the remaining three accused, accused 7-Karigunda alias Mahadeva is absconding and hence the case against him is split up. Finally, the trial was conducted only against accused 2 and 5 before the Trial Court. Accused 2 and 5 are respondents in this appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were friends and classmates; they used to attend "Base Tuition" classes during the relevant point of time; after attending "Base Tuition" classes at 8.45 p.m. on 30-9-2008, they were coming back to their homes; when they reached the scooter stand wherein they had parked the scooter, seven unknown persons came there and started quarrelling with them (P.Ws. 3 and 4) unnecessarily and without any reason; one of the accused got two autorickshaws and they (P.Ws. 3 and 4) were taken in those autorickshaws by seven unknown persons; the two autorickshaws wherein the accused and the victim were seated, were taken near Gavigangadhareshwara Temple, K.G. Nagara wherein the accused robbed valuables such as gold ornaments, mobile phone, cash of Rs. 100/- etc., from P.Ws. 3 and 4; however P.Ws. 3 and 4 were released by those seven unknown persons thereafter; P.Ws. 3 and 4 came to their houses and narrated about the incident to their respective parents during the night of 30-9-2008. P.W. 1 is father of P.W. 3. He told his son-P.W. 3 to take rest on that day and to lodge the complaint on the next day. However on the next day morning, P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to their college for regular studies and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged as per Ex. P.W. 1 is father of P.W. 3. He told his son-P.W. 3 to take rest on that day and to lodge the complaint on the next day. However on the next day morning, P.Ws. 3 and 4 went to their college for regular studies and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged as per Ex. P. 3 by P.W. 3 with the help of his father (P.W. 1) before the PSI of Basavanagudi Police Station (P.W. 8), which came to be registered in Crime No. 196 of 2008 for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Case was registered against seven unknown persons. During the investigation of the said crime, some of the accused were arrested in another crime i.e., Crime No. 246 of 2008 in Kengeri Police Station which was registered for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. In the said crime, the voluntary statement of accused 2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer of that Crime (i.e., Crime No. 246 of 2008). Based on that, certain gold ornaments and mobile phone were recovered. The Investigating Officer having come to know that M.Os. 1 to 3 are the subject-matter of robbery committed by the accused and having come to know that Crime No. 196 of 2008 is registered in Basavanagudi Police Station against the accused, he transmitted M.Os. 1 to 3 to Basavanagudi Police Station for further proceedings. Ultimately, the charge-sheet came to be filed in Crime No. 196 of 2008 by P.W. 12-the Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station for the offence under Section 395 of IPC against seven persons including the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses and got marked 8 Exhibits and 3 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As mentioned supra, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. 3. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the evidence of each of the witnesses in brief. P.W. 1 is father of P.W. 3 and he is the hearsay witness inasmuch as his deposition is based on the information gathered from his son-P.W. 1. Therefore his evidence is of no use for deciding this matter. P.W. 2 is a pawn broker. P.W. 1 is father of P.W. 3 and he is the hearsay witness inasmuch as his deposition is based on the information gathered from his son-P.W. 1. Therefore his evidence is of no use for deciding this matter. P.W. 2 is a pawn broker. P.W. 2 has deposed that one boy came to his shop and pledged the articles and he has not identified any of the accused as to the boy who had come to his shop for the purpose of pledging. He was treated hostile by the Public Prosecutor. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are college going boys. They were about 16 to 18 years of age during the relevant point of time. P.W. 3 is the complainant. He has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 3 before the Police. They depose that they did not know any of the accused earlier and they have seen the accused for the first time at the time of the incident. P.W. 5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Kengeri Police Station, who apprehended the accused in Crime No. 246 of 2008 registered for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. In the said crime, the voluntary' statement was recorded and M.Os. 1 to 3 were recovered at the instance of accused No. 2. P.W. 6 is the Police Constable who apprehended one of the accused. P.W. 7 is the recovery panch. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station who received the complaint-Ex. P. 3 and sent the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex. P. 4. P.W. 9 is the Inspector of Police of Kengeri Police Station. He conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 10 is the witness for Ex. P.6-seizure Mahazar. But he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 11 is the Inspector of Police. He is the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kengeri Police Station during the relevant point of time and he conducted investigation in Crime No. 246 of 2008. P.W. 12 is another Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station during the relevant point of time. He conducted investigation and laid the charge-sheet. 4. The case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4who are the eye-witnesses to the incident and the evidence of P.Ws. P.W. 12 is another Inspector of Police of Basavanagudi Police Station during the relevant point of time. He conducted investigation and laid the charge-sheet. 4. The case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4who are the eye-witnesses to the incident and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 who are the witnesses for proving the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of accused No. 2. 5. In the matter on hand, the records reveal that the Investigating Officers have taken more time for starting the investigation itself. The question as to whether such attempt was deliberate or not has to be gone into by the Court. The incident has taken place at 8.45 p.m. on 30-9-2008 in the busy locality of the Bangalore City. At about 10.30 p.m. both P.Ws. 3 and 4 have reached the houses and told their respective parents about the incident. However complaint came to be lodged only on the next day i.e., 1-10-2008 at 8.45 p.m. Therefore it is clear that the complaint came to be lodged after 24 hours of the incident. Added to it, the first information report reached the jurisdiction Magistrate only at 11 a.m. on 3-10-2008 i.e., after about 1½ days of registration of the crime. There is absolutely no reason as to why the FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate with so much of delay. Admittedly, the incidents taken place in the heart of Bangalore City. The jurisdictional Magistral Court is situated at a distance of about 5 to 6 kilometers from Basavanagudi Police Station. Despite the same, the FIR has reached the Magistrate on 3-10-2008 at 11.00 a.m. and such delay, either in lodging the complaint or in dispatching the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate has remained unexplained. Such long delay has given raise to suspicion info mind of the Court as to the intention of the Investigating Officer. 6. Admittedly, the accused were arrested in a different crime i.e., Crime No. 246 of 2008 registered in Kengeri Police Station for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, the voluntary statement of accused 2 was recorded in the said crime (i.e., Crime No. 246 of 2008) and M.Os. 1 to 3 were recovered from the shop of P.W.21 (pawnbroker) at the instance of accused 2. There are no specific identification marks on M.Os. According to the case of the prosecution, the voluntary statement of accused 2 was recorded in the said crime (i.e., Crime No. 246 of 2008) and M.Os. 1 to 3 were recovered from the shop of P.W.21 (pawnbroker) at the instance of accused 2. There are no specific identification marks on M.Os. 1 to 3. Be that as it may, M.Os. 1 to 3 are identified by P.W.3 specifically and by P.W. 4 vaguely. According to P.W. 3, M.O. 3 belongs to him and M.Os. 1 and 2 belongs to P.W. 4. Such specification as deposed by P.W. 3 is not forthcoming in the evidence of P.W. 4. 7. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are college going boys. They were about 16 to 18 years of age during the relevant point of time. The evidence of these two witnesses clearly reveal that they did not know any of the accused earlier and they have seen the accused for the first time at the time of the incident. It is also not. dispute that the incident had taken place at about 8.45 p.m. on 30-9-2008. It is clearly admitted by P.W. 3 that there was pitch-darkness at the scene of offence and they were not able to see the faces of any of the accused. However P.W. 4 has deposed that he could see the faces of the accused when the accused took them to Bull Temple Road, which was a busy area. Admittedly, the accused had taken P.Ws. 3 and 4 in two different autorickshaws. Therefore it cannot be presumed that though P.W. 4 had allegedly seen the faces of some of the accused when the autorickshaw reached the Bull Temple Road, P.W. 3 had also seen the faces of the said accused. But the fact remains that there was pitch-darkness in the area and that the accused immediately after quarrelling with P.Ws. 3 and 4, dragged them inside the autorickshaw and took them away near Gavigangadhareshwara Temple and snatched is. 1 to 3 apart from other gold ornaments worn by these two witnesses. Their evidence further discloses that they did not raise any hue and cry though the area in question is a busy area. They did not sustain any injury. Even according to these witnesses, the accused has repaid Rs. 50/- to them for facilitating them to reach their house. Their evidence further discloses that they did not raise any hue and cry though the area in question is a busy area. They did not sustain any injury. Even according to these witnesses, the accused has repaid Rs. 50/- to them for facilitating them to reach their house. Having regard to such material on record, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court is justified in observing that P.Ws. 3 and 4 might not have seen the faces of any of the accused to a greater extent so as to identify them before the Court. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused were secured by tire Police before Kengeri Police Station after three days of the incident and P.Ws. Sand 4 were summoned to the said Police Station. In the said Police Station, P.Ws. 3 and 4 have identified accused 1 and 2 as the two persons among the group of seven unknown persons. After about 2 to 3 weeks, P.Ws. 3 and 4 identified accused 5. They also identified accused 2 and 5 before the Court. 9. Admittedly, the Test Identification parade was not held during the course of investigation. As mentioned supra, there was pitch-darkness and that the victim could not have seen the faces of any of the accused, particularly when they did not know any of the accused earlier to the incident and that they had not seen the accused prior to the incident. Since there were only two accused facing the trial, it would be very easy for P.Ws. 3 and 4 to depose regarding alleged identity of accused 2 and 5 who were facing the trial. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, learned Amicus Curiae is justified in arguing that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were shown accused 2 and 5 in the Police Station itself and therefore there is really no identification of the accused by P.Ws, 3 and 4. If the identification of the two accused is disbelieved by the Court, nothing remains in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 so as to implicate the accused 2 and 5. In our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is justified in disbelieving the versions of P.Ws. If the identification of the two accused is disbelieved by the Court, nothing remains in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 so as to implicate the accused 2 and 5. In our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is justified in disbelieving the versions of P.Ws. 3 and 4 because they could not have identified accused land 5 ai all because of the pitch-darkness in the area and because of the fact that they had not seen the accused at all earlier to the incident. 10. The next set of evidence is relating to recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 for proving the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3. The Inspector of Police (P.W. 11) has deposed before the Court that he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 2, based on which he conducted the recovery proceedings and recovered M.Os. 1 to 3. However in the cross-examination, P.W. 11 admits that he has not recorded the voluntary statement inasmuch as Mr. Anjan Kumar (P.W. 9), the Sub-Inspector of Police has recorded the voluntary statement of Accused No. 2. Curiously P.W. 9-Anjan Kumar who has allegedly recorded the voluntary statement as per the version of P.W. 11 has not deposed a single sentence with regard to recording of the voluntary statement of accused No. 2. Therefore the evidence with regard to recording of the voluntary statement of the accused is net placed before the Court in proper perspective. The prosecution has net produced the relevant records and has not adduced evidence of the Police Officer who is stated to have recorded the voluntary statement. The Investigating Officer has kept the Court in darkness about the said aspect the matter. Moreover the mahazar witness for recovery panchanama-Ex. P. 2 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution completely. He has neither supported the case of the prosecution nor the defence. His evidence is of no use either to the prosecution or to the defence. No other person supporting the recovery panchanama is examined except the Investigating Officer (P.W, 11). According to the case of the prosecution, Accused No. 2 had pledged the gold ornaments and the mobile phone in the shop of pawnbroker (P.W. 2). His evidence is of no use either to the prosecution or to the defence. No other person supporting the recovery panchanama is examined except the Investigating Officer (P.W, 11). According to the case of the prosecution, Accused No. 2 had pledged the gold ornaments and the mobile phone in the shop of pawnbroker (P.W. 2). The said pawnbroker (P.W. 2) has deposed that one boy came to the shop and pledged the articles and he has not identified any of the accused as to the boy who had come to his shop for the purpose of pledging. He was treated hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Even in the cross-examination, he did not give any favourable answers for the prosecution. As mentioned supra, the Police Officer (P.W. 11) who has allegedly recovered M.Os. 1 to 3 has blown hot and cold at the same time. He has deposed that he himself has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 2, but in the cross-examination, he admitted that the Police Officer (P.W. 9) recorded the voluntary statement. We feel that it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 11 inasmuch as he not is a reliable witness with regard to the recovery of Material Objects. In view of the aforementioned material on record, the Trial Court is justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution with regard to the circumstance of recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 also. 11. Since none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution ate proved, it is not a fit case to overturn the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. We find that the reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are just and proper. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly. We place on record the valuable services rendered by Sri N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae. In token thereof, we direct the Registry to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as honorarium to the learned Amicus Curiae.