JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2002 passed in S.T. No. 102 of 2000, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, the present appellants have filed this appeal. 2. These two appellants have been convicted for committing offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo R.I. for six months. 3. Latehar P.S. Case No. 8 of 1999 was registered under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code on 12.01.1999 on the fardbeyan of one Rajesh Pal (P.W.2). The informant stated before the police that on 12.01.1999, he being the driver of bus bearing registration no. BR 14P 4266 was driving the said bus, which proceeded from Ranchi to Daltonganj. At about 1.25 p.m. the said bus left Ranchi and reached Chandwa at 3.10 P.M. When the bus reached at Udaipur bus stand at about 3.45 p.m. some passengers got off the bus and at that point of time one person aged about 22-23 came near the driver and pointed pistol and threatened him not to proceed further. He further stated that some miscreants started breaking window-panes of the bus and some other miscreants started looting the passengers. He stated that from a passenger Lakhan Lal Rs. 9500/- was looted and from one Md. Yusuf, another passenger, Rs. 3500/- was looted by them. The conductor, who was carrying money with him was also a victim and from his possession Rs. 3000/- was looted by the miscreants. One of the passenger, namely, Dwarika Das (P.W.1) was also assaulted by the miscreants. He lastly stated that approximately Rs.20,000/- was looted from the passengers of the bus. On this fardbeyan, the first information report was registered against 5 unknown miscreants. 4. The police investigated the case and during course of investigation some miscreants were apprehended and they were put on test identification parade. The police after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 38 of 1999 dated 12.04.1999 under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code against Vishwanath Singh and Kundan Singh. 4. The police investigated the case and during course of investigation some miscreants were apprehended and they were put on test identification parade. The police after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 38 of 1999 dated 12.04.1999 under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code against Vishwanath Singh and Kundan Singh. After filing of the charge sheet cognizance was taken under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charge was framed on 16.06.2000 under section 395 of the Indian penal Code. 5. The appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the charge leveled against the appellants examined 8 witnesses. 7. Signature of the informant on the fardbeyan was marked Ext.1, Fardbeyan itself was marked as Ext.3, Report of the Test Identification Parade was marked as Ext.2 and formal F.I.R. was marked as Ext.4. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of these appellants was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No witnesses were produced on behalf of the defence. 9. The trial Court after hearing the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defence and the learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the materials on record convicted the appellants for committing offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine they should further remain in custody for 6 months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellants are before this Court by filing this appeal. 10. I have heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. on behalf of the State. 11. Mr. Kashyap at the very outset submits that from the evidence it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. He submits that the witness Nos. 2 to 6 have not identified any of the appellants as the miscreants. He further submits that P.W.1 is not fully reliable witness. He further submits that in fact, there is no material to support the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws. He submits that the witness Nos. 2 to 6 have not identified any of the appellants as the miscreants. He further submits that P.W.1 is not fully reliable witness. He further submits that in fact, there is no material to support the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 are to be scrapped. He further submits that the T.I. parade was not in accordance with law and, thus, no credence can be given to the said T.I. parade. 12. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. submits that P.W.1 has identified these appellants not only in the T.I. parade but in the Court during trial also. He submits that P.W.1 was injured at the behest of these appellants and around about Rs. 20,000/- was looted by them from the passengers of the bus. He lastly submits that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of these two appellants. 13. After going through the record, I find that 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. P.W.1 is Dwarika Das, was a passenger of the said bus. He stated that he was looted by the miscreants while he was traveling from Ranchi to Daltonganj. He further submits that he was called to the police station when these appellants were arrested. He had seen the appellants in police custody and thereafter he was taken to identify these appellants in T.I. parade. He submits that on the saying of the police official he identified this appellants. He further identified these appellants in the Court. P.W.2 Rajesh Pal, he is the informant himself. He has supported his statement given in the first information report. He supported the fact that the miscreants looted the passengers of the bus, but he has not identified any of these appellants in T.I. parade or in Court. P.W.3 is Sahja Devi, she was also a passenger of a said bus. She in her evidence stated that she could not remember the name of the bus nor could identify the miscreants. P.W.4 is Sahdeo Uraon is the owner of a roadside hotel and he is a hearsay witness. He has stated that he had heard about the incident from the conductor of the bus. P.W.5 is the conductor of the said bus from whom Rs. 3000/- was snatched by the miscreants. He supported the fact that Rs. P.W.4 is Sahdeo Uraon is the owner of a roadside hotel and he is a hearsay witness. He has stated that he had heard about the incident from the conductor of the bus. P.W.5 is the conductor of the said bus from whom Rs. 3000/- was snatched by the miscreants. He supported the fact that Rs. 3000/- was taken from him, but he has not identified any of these appellants. P.W.6 is Dashrath Lakra, he stated that no incident has taken place in his presence and he was declared hostile. P.W.7 Abhimanyu Lal Srivastava, he is the Judicial Magistrate in whose presence T.I. parade was conducted. He stated that the witnesses have identified Kundan Singh and Vishwanath Singh. In his cross-examination he has stated that Witness Rajesh Pal (informant) did not identify any of the miscreants. P.W.8 is Mohammad Suleman, he is a formal witness, who exhibited the formal first information report. 14. From evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I find that except P.W.1 none of the witnesses have identified these appellants as the miscreants. The only witness, who has identified these appellants, is P.W.1. He identified these appellants firstly in the T.I. parade and thereafter in the Court. 15. Now the question is how much reliance can be placed on the point of identification. I find that P.W.1in his evidence has specifically stated that before the appellants were put on T.I. parade, they were kept in the police lock-up in the police station. This witness was taken to the police station where he was shown these appellants. After he had seen the appellants in the police station he was taken to the jail where T.I. parade was conducted. He further stated that on instruction of the police officials he identified these appellants. This entire process creates doubt about the conduct of T.I. parade itself. Appellants were made to be identified by the witness much before T.I. parade was held and that too at the instance of the police. A doubt remains about the identification of the appellants. Thus, the statement of P.W.1 cannot be fully relied upon. Thus, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of these appellants as the miscreants. 16. That being so, I find that the judgment of conviction is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside and these appellants are liable to be acquitted. Thus, the statement of P.W.1 cannot be fully relied upon. Thus, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of these appellants as the miscreants. 16. That being so, I find that the judgment of conviction is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside and these appellants are liable to be acquitted. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2002 passed in S.T. No. 102 of 2000, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, is hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.