JUDGMENT : M.A. Ali, J. These three appeals, which have arisen from the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 220/2013 (UPA) are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302/326 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for 10 years under Section 326 IPC. The appellants were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively under Section 302 IPC and Section 326 IPC with default stipulation. 2. An FIR was lodged by Sri Tabom Gapak (PW-3) alleging that on 29.05.2013, at about 2- 2.30 AM, some unknown culprits killed his son Bomjen Gapak near Liezi Complex, Itanagar, by inflicting multiple sharp cut injuries. The assailants also inflicted serious injuries to Terkuk Gapak (PW-1) by sharp weapon. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Itanagar P.S. Case No. 118/2013 under Section 326/302/34 IPC. The case was initially investigated by Sub-Inspector T.M. Nikam, who visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of some of the witnesses, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, sent the body for postmortem examination and seized some incriminating articles. Having noticed the slow progress of the investigation, the Superintendent of Police handed over the investigation of the case to the Inspector of Police, Tabi Bage (PW-25) and the subsequent Investigating Officer sent the CC TV footage collected by the previous Investigating Officer for forensic examination and on the basis of the FSL report of the CC TV footage, seized a vehicle allegedly used by the accused persons, recovered the weapons of the offence and arrested the accused persons. 3. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. D. Phinya (PW-21), who found the following injuries. "i. An incised wound obliquely placed on left parital scalp measuring 4.5X0.8 cm X2 cm from midline, 7 cm above left eye brow. ii. A muscle deep incised wound on the left eye brow, measuring 2x0.7 cm, 5 cm from midline and 7 cm in front of left ear. iii. An incised chop wound on the neck obliquely placed, extending from Rt lateral side of the thyroid cartilage (at the level of C5) up to left side of the neck. ii. A muscle deep incised wound on the left eye brow, measuring 2x0.7 cm, 5 cm from midline and 7 cm in front of left ear. iii. An incised chop wound on the neck obliquely placed, extending from Rt lateral side of the thyroid cartilage (at the level of C5) up to left side of the neck. On left lateral end 2 cm below left ear and Rt lateral end 1.5 cm from the midline, 4 cm below mandible 5 cm above right clavide and measuring 14x3.5 cm with involvement of muscle thyroid cartilage, left carotid artery, jugular vein and Cs vertebrae. iv. An obliquely place abrasion on Rt side of the neck and Rt upper chest, which was extending from Rt. side of thyroid cartilage (C5) to Rt. Lateral uppor chest measuring 16x0.3 cm 127 cm above heel. v. A bone deep incised chop wound on the Rt. Lateral side of thigh with the involvement of muscle and bone, measuring 7.5x3 cm 89 cm above heel. vi. A bone deep incised wound of the left leg extending from interior medial side up to sole, measuring 9x2 cm with the involvement of muscle and 1st metatarsal bone. vii. A bone deep incised wound on the medial region/ankle region placed perpendicularly, measuring 10x3 cm with the involvement of muscle and talus bone. Vii A bone deep incised chop wound of the left anterior leg extending form lateral calf muscle to medical calf muscle with the involvement of muscle and tibia/tabula bones measuring 30x5 cm 15 cm above heel, 10 cm below left knee joint. ix. An abrasion on left interior shoulder, placed perpendicularly measuring 14.03, 13 cm below tip of the shoulder and 4.5 above elbow. x. A lacerated wound of left thumb and fracture of prominel metacarpal bone measuring 3x2 cm." 4. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock resulting from chop injuries on the neck and legs by moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon. Time since death was stated to be 6-12 hours before the postmortem examination. 5. Dr. Hage Sunny (PW-23), who examined the injured witness (PW-1), found laceration over the flexor aspect of left forearm with laceration of multiple muscles and tendons. Radial artery pulsations were palpable. Loss of flexion movements at the wrist joint was noted. In the opinion of the doctor, the nature of injury was grievous. 5. Dr. Hage Sunny (PW-23), who examined the injured witness (PW-1), found laceration over the flexor aspect of left forearm with laceration of multiple muscles and tendons. Radial artery pulsations were palpable. Loss of flexion movements at the wrist joint was noted. In the opinion of the doctor, the nature of injury was grievous. 6. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons under Section 326/302/201 IPC R/W 34 IPC. Later on two supplementary charge sheets were also filed against two of the accused persons and eventually all the seven accused persons stood trial. 7. In course of trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. Prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellants and awarded sentences as indicated above. 8. We have heard learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel Mr. M. Biswas, Mr. P.D. Nair for the appellants and Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Sessions Judge convicted the appellants relying on the evidence of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7, who projected themselves as eye witnesses. But, none of these eye witnesses had implicated the appellants in their previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, nor the appellants were implicated in the FIR and all of them implicated the appellants for the first time in court. It was also submitted by the learned defence counsel, that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) purportedly conducted in respect of accused No. 1 was extremely tainted and as such, no conviction could have been based on the oral testimony of the so called eye witnesses, who identified the appellant for the first time in court. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that though, the learned trial court heavily relied on the recovery of the weapon of offence, the alleged recovery of weapon at the instance of accused was also not proved beyond doubt. Therefore, learned counsel representing the appellants submitted with vehemence, that the conviction and sentence of the appellants were not based any credible or trustworthy evidence and as such not sustainable. To buttress the submission, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Rabindra Kr. Paul @ Dara Sing Vs. Therefore, learned counsel representing the appellants submitted with vehemence, that the conviction and sentence of the appellants were not based any credible or trustworthy evidence and as such not sustainable. To buttress the submission, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Rabindra Kr. Paul @ Dara Sing Vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 (ii) Dana Yadav @ Dahu and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295 . 10. Par contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, contended that identification of the accused before the court is a substantive piece of evidence and it cannot be brushed for want of TIP or any defect in the TIP. 11. We have meticulously scrutinized the evidence and materials brought on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 12. Learned trial court convicted the appellants primarily relying on the six eye witnesses, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Besides, the oral testimony of the aforementioned eye witnesses, learned trial court also heavily relied on the recovery of weapon of offence and the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants. Therefore, at the outset, we deem it apposite to scrutinize the oral testimony of the six eye witnesses, relied by the learned trial court. 13. Pw-1, Tirkuk Gapak stated, that in the intervening night of 26.05.2013 and 27.05.2013, he along with Chopra Mogli (PW-2), Bomjen Gapak (deceased), Bikuk Lamdang (PW-7), Tabom Gilo (PW-6), Kabom Nima (PW-4), Namchoom Digru (Pw-5) and Debu Dasi were watching IPL match in the house of Taku Gapak. At about 2 AM, he left the house of Taku Gopak along with Chopra Mugli (PW-2) in order to drop PW-2 at D-Sector. When they reached near Echo Arunachal Office, opposite to SBI, they found a group of persons standing near the road. When they reached near them, one of them, namely, Ramesh Taku, suddenly threw a helmet on them, which hit on his abdomen and he sustained injury. Noticing the accused persons including Ramesh Taku approaching towards them, they immediately left the place and reached Heema Hospital for treatment. The hospital was closed as nobody was available at the hospital and therefore, they decided to go to RKM hospital. Noticing the accused persons including Ramesh Taku approaching towards them, they immediately left the place and reached Heema Hospital for treatment. The hospital was closed as nobody was available at the hospital and therefore, they decided to go to RKM hospital. In the meantime, they also informed their friends by mobile phone regarding the incidence and asked them to join. When they were moving slowly towards RKM Hospital expecting their friends to join them and reached Lezi complex, they found a group of persons obstructing the road and their vehicle was parked nearby. They asked the PW-1 and PW-2, whether they were the persons, who were passing through the Eco Arunachal Office and having said so, the accused Ramesh Taku slapped both of them and then they could learn, that they were the persons, who threw helmet on them. He also stated that accused Bagra Taku gave him a leg blow on his stomach and he fell down on the ground. Then he saw another boy identified as Bharat Sonam approaching towards him and he threw a stone on him. At that point of time, his brother Bomjen Gapak and his friends reached the spot. When Bomjen charged the appellants as to why they were beating PW-1 and PW-2, accused Ramesh Taku took out a dao from back side of the vehicle and hit Bomjen on his neck. Then, the accused Bagra Taku angrily snatched the dao from Ramesh Taku and hit on the leg of Bomjen Gapak. Thereafter Bangram Sargyu snatched the said dao from Bagra Taku and hit Bomjen on his buttock portion. Seeing the occurrence, when he started running towards the complex, accused Bangram Sangyu hit him and he received grievous injury on his hand. When they were fleeing from the place of occurrence, accused persons also threw stone on them. On reaching IG park, he (PW-1) met PW-2, and called the father of Bomjen Gapak over phone and informed him about the incident. He also stated that his other friends, of arrived the place of occurrence, left the place out of fear. According to him, police called him many times to identify the accused persons and so many persons were produced before him, but none of them were involved in the occurrence. He also stated that his other friends, of arrived the place of occurrence, left the place out of fear. According to him, police called him many times to identify the accused persons and so many persons were produced before him, but none of them were involved in the occurrence. Then after a long gap, accused Ramesh Taku was produced before him and instantly without any hesitation he identified Ramesh Taku to be the accused, who was involved in the occurrence. He also identified accused Ramesh Taku, Bangram Sangyu and Bagra Taku in the court. During cross examination, he stated, that the night was not dark and light was sufficient to identify the persons. He also stated that he could recognize the accused Ramesh Taku, but did not know his name. Apparently, this witness did not mention the name of any of the accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, nor disclosed to the PW-3 (informant), while informed him about the occurrence, rather, he had given a quite contradictory statement in his examination under Section 161 CrPC, wherein he (PW-1) stated that it was dark and they were in haste and therefore could not ascertain the exact member of the group and their appearance also could not be seen clearly. Thus, the statement of the PW1 during evidence, that he could recognize Ramesh Taku at the scene of occurrence and there was sufficient light appears to be self contradictory and mutually destructive and irreconcilable with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 14. Reliance was placed by the learned trial court heavily on the test identification parade, held in respect of appellant Ramesh Taku. Ext. 5, the TIP memo shows that PW-1 identified the accused Ramesh Taku during the TIP. It is also evident from the TIP report (Ext.5) and the oral testimony of PW-19, the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the TIP, that the accused Ramesh Taku was paraded with three other tribal persons. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. M. Biswas contended, referring to the statement of the appellant, Ramesh Taku, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, that appellant was paraded with non-tribal person and therefore the TIP was vitiated. Refuting the submission of Mr. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. M. Biswas contended, referring to the statement of the appellant, Ramesh Taku, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, that appellant was paraded with non-tribal person and therefore the TIP was vitiated. Refuting the submission of Mr. Biswas, learned Public Prosecutor submitted, that the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the TIP clearly deposed, that the appellant Ramesh Taku was paraded with three tribal persons and the evidence of the Magistrate (PW19) was never challenged in cross examination and, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve the Magistrate (PW-19). Be that as it may, from the evidence of PW-1, it appears that he was called to the police station on various occasions to identify the assailants and produced many suspects before him, but he could not recognize any of them. Ultimately, when Ramesh Taku was produced before him by police, he could immediately identify him. This categorical statement of the PW-1 clearly shows, that even before the TIP conducted by PW-19, the PW-1 had the opportunity to see the accused Ramesh Taku at the police station. It was the case of all the witnesses that they could not identify the accused persons by name as they saw them for the first time and therefore none of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the name of the appellants in their previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC or in the FIR lodged by PW-3 on the basis of information given by PW-1. However, surprisingly, the TIP was held for only one accused being Ramesh Taku. Neither the other accused persons were subjected to TIP, nor all the witnesses, who claimed to have seen the occurrence were called to participate in the TIP. What is therefore apparent from the materials on record is that a selective TIP was held only for one accused i.e. Ramesh Taku and only the PW-1, who had the opportunity to see the accused Ramesh Taku even before the TIP was called to identify the accused. Therefore, TIP conducted in the present case was absolutely meaningless. The Apex Court in Mahabir Vs. State of Delhi, (2008) 16 SCC 481 , where evidence was that the accused was brought to the hospital and shown to the prosecution witness, the identification of the accused in test identification parade was held to be farce and conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC was set aside. The Apex Court in Mahabir Vs. State of Delhi, (2008) 16 SCC 481 , where evidence was that the accused was brought to the hospital and shown to the prosecution witness, the identification of the accused in test identification parade was held to be farce and conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC was set aside. Though, the identification of accused in TIP is a valuable corroborative evidence to the substantive evidence in court, no credibility can be attached to the TIP held in the present case as the accused was shown to the witnesses before the TIP. 15. Pw-2, Chopra Mugli deposed that he left the house along with PW-1 on his motorcycle as pillion for his residence at D-Sector. On the way, a group of persons, who were standing near the SBI, threw a helmet on them, which hit both himself and PW-1 and they sustained injury. Immediately, they moved to Heema Hospital for treatment, which was found closed. Then, they informed their friends about the incident and also asked them to come to RKM Hospital, where they were proceeding to. When they were proceeding towards RKM Hospital, they met the same group of persons at Lezi complex, who enquired, whether they were the persons, who were passing through SBI. When they replied in affirmative, they started assaulting both of them (PW-1 and PW-2). According to PW-2, the accused Ramesh Taku slapped him and Bagra Taku gave a leg blow to PW-1. At that point of time, Bomjen (deceased), Tabom Rilo, Kabum Nima, Namchoom Rilo and others reached the spot and charged the accused persons, as to why they were assaulting PW-1 and PW-2. Suddenly, Ramesh Taku took out a dao from the backside of a grey colour Chevrolet vehicle and hit Bomjen on his neck. Then the accused Bagra Taku snatched the dao from Ramesh Taku and hit Bomjen on his leg. Seeing the incident, he got shocked. Again Bangram Sangyu took the 'dao' from Bagra Taku and hit PW-1. Then he asked the friends to flee from the place of occurrence and informed the PW-3 about the occurrence. He also stated, that he recognized and identified all the accused persons standing on the dock, namely Bagra Taku, Bangram Sangyu, Jina Bagang, Mangram Tajo and Ramesh Taku. Again Bangram Sangyu took the 'dao' from Bagra Taku and hit PW-1. Then he asked the friends to flee from the place of occurrence and informed the PW-3 about the occurrence. He also stated, that he recognized and identified all the accused persons standing on the dock, namely Bagra Taku, Bangram Sangyu, Jina Bagang, Mangram Tajo and Ramesh Taku. He even deposed to have identified the two accused, namely Bharat Sonam and Tadung Sangyu by name, who were not even present in the court. In the cross examination, this witness stated that he could recognize all the accused persons during the process. He also admitted to have seen the appellants in court, when Tirkup Gapak (PW-1) was examined. According to him, he was present in court, when the deposition of PW-1 was recorded. Apparently, deposition of Tirkup Gapak (PW-1) was recorded on 21.02.2014 and PW2 was examined as witness on 13.05.2014. Admittedly, he did not mention about any of the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. What therefore, crystallizes from the evidence of PW-2 is that PW-2 had the opportunity to be acquainted with the appellant and knowing the name of all the accused persons remaining present in court, before recording his deposition. Therefore, it cannot be said that this PW-2 identified the accused persons for the first time in court, inasmuch as, he had the opportunity to see the appellant in court and to know their names, by remaining present in court at the time of recording evidence of PW-1. This apart, implicating two of the accused by name, who were not even present in court, further creates the doubt on his testimony as to identification of the appellants in court for the first time. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, when PW-2 did not mention the name of any of the accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC nor he stated PW-3 about the name of any of the accused, his identification of the accused persons by name after having come to know from the PW-1 while he was deposing in court hardly carries any credibility. 16. Pw-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 testified that having received the information over phone from PW-1 that some unknown persons caused injury to PW-2 by throwing helmet, all of them together proceeded to the place of occurrence in two motorbikes. 16. Pw-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 testified that having received the information over phone from PW-1 that some unknown persons caused injury to PW-2 by throwing helmet, all of them together proceeded to the place of occurrence in two motorbikes. Tabom Rilo and Bomjen (deceased) were on one bike and the rests three i.e. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 were in another bike. PW-4 stated that when they reached near lazi complex, they noticed, that all the appellants were assaulting his two friends i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. He further stated that Tabom Ribo and Bomjen (deceased), who were little ahead of them charged the appellants, as to why they were obstructing the road and assaulting their friends. They also joined Tabom and Bomjen, and suddenly, one of the accused, namely Ramesh Taku went to his vehicle and came back with a dao and hit on the leg of Bomjen. Then Tirkup Gapak tried to resist him and at that point of time, suddenly, Bangram Sangyu took the dao from Ramesh Taku and hit PW-1 on his hand. Having seen the accused persons inflicting injuries to PW-1 and deceased Bomjen, he got scared and had fled away from the spot. He further stated that his other friends also had fled away. He informed one Dibu Dasi about the occurrence and again came to the spot and found Bomjen lying on the ground with injuries on his neck and leg. This witness also admitted to have not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC the names of the accused/appellants. He also admitted that he identified the accused persons only after they were arrested and came to know their names during the proceeding of the case. 17. According to PW-5, when all of them reached the place of occurrence by riding motorcycle, they found that PW-1 and PW-2 were beaten by the accused/appellants. When they tried to intervene, suddenly accused Ramesh Taku took out a dao from backside of the vehicle and started attacking them. At first he hit Bomjen on his neck and immediately, accused Bagra Taku snatched away the 'dao' from Ramesh Taku and hit on the leg of Bomjen. When PW-1 tried to save Bomjen, accused Bangram Sangyu hit him with the dao on his hand. Having seen the occurrence, he got scared and fled away from the place of occurrence. At first he hit Bomjen on his neck and immediately, accused Bagra Taku snatched away the 'dao' from Ramesh Taku and hit on the leg of Bomjen. When PW-1 tried to save Bomjen, accused Bangram Sangyu hit him with the dao on his hand. Having seen the occurrence, he got scared and fled away from the place of occurrence. This witness also stated in cross examination that at the time of occurrence, he did not know the names of the accused persons, but came to know only after their arrest and during the trial of the case. The testimony of this witness is also found to be contradictory on material particulars with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, inasmuch as, he also admitted to have stated before police, that he could identify only one boy at the time of occurrence, who was standing on the motorcycle and was of stout built, long hair with dye. He further stated that he would be able to identify that boy, if he can see him physically. What is therefore evident from the admission of PW-5 is that he could recognize only one boy, who was standing on the motorcycle. PW-5 did not identify any of the accused as the said tall boy, whom he could recognize at the time of occurrence. Therefore, his admitted statement before police, that he could recognize only one tall boy by face at the time of occurrence and not mentioning the name of any of the accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, coupled with his admission, that he could know all the accused persons during trial clearly demonstrated that he could not recognize any of the accused at the time of occurrence, except one tall boy. 18. Pw-6 stated that when they reached Lazi complex, he saw the accused persons in a group and he could recognize them by their face. He further stated that he could even recognize Ramesh Taku, who was known to him, though he was not present in court on that day. He further stated that one Mangram Tajo, who was not present in court was also at the place of occurrence. He further stated that he could even recognize Ramesh Taku, who was known to him, though he was not present in court on that day. He further stated that one Mangram Tajo, who was not present in court was also at the place of occurrence. According to him, on reaching the place of occurrence, Bomjen (deceased) charged the accused persons as to why they were beating PW-1 and PW-2, whereupon, Ramesh Taku suddenly took out a Dao from the vehicle and hit him on his shoulder with the blunt side of the Dao and thereafter he hit Bomjen on his neck with the sharp side of the Dao. On seeing the attack with Dao, he got nervous and had fled away from the place of occurrence. He further deposed, that after about 15/20 minutes, PW-2 called him over phone and informed that Bomjen Gapak and Tirkup Gapak (PW-1) sustained injuries and asked him to come to Kime-Paka. During cross examination, he stated that he could not identify as to which accused assaulted Tirkup Gapak and which accused assaulted Chopra Mugli. This witness also in his previous statement did not mention the name of any one of the accused, rather stated that he could not recognize any of the accused persons. He further deposed that he knew the accused Ramesh Taku only from the day of incident and came to know his name when police had shown him the photograph of Ramesh Taku. What is further evident from the testimony of this witness is that Ramesh Taku first hit him (PW-6) with 'dao' and thereafter hit Bomjen on his neck. But no other witness stated that Ramesh Taku assaulted PW-6 with dao. There was also no evidence that PW-6 sustained any injury. Therefore in view of his statement before police that he could not recognize any of the accused person at the time of occurrence and his admission that he could recognize and knew the name of accused Ramesh Taku when he was shown the photograph of Ramesh Taku by police, coupled with the inconsistency in his evidence with other eye witnesses, with regard to the accused Ramesh Taku hitting him and causing injuries raises serious doubt not only on the credibility of his deposition regarding identification of the appellant in court for the first time, but also regarding his presence at the place of occurrence. 19. 19. Pw-7 stated that when he arrived near Lazi complex along with others after receiving telephone call, he found PW-1 and PW-2 with the accused persons at the place of occurrence. He also deposed that PW-6 Tabong and deceased Bomjen moved towards the accused and asked them as to why they were doing so. At that point of time, Ramesh Taku took out a Dao from the vehicle and hit Tabom Rilo on his shoulder and then he inflicted injuries to Bomjen on his neck. He further stated, that accused Bagra Taku took the Dao from Ramesh Taku and assaulted Bomjen on his leg. Having seen the occurrence, he got nervous and had fled away from there. During cross examination, he admitted that on arriving at the place of occurrence, he could not notice properly as to what happen to PW-1 and PW-2. He also stated to have come to know the name of Ramesh Taku and Bagra Taku after the occurrence. He further stated that he did not know Ramesh Taku prior to the occurrence and in fact, he did not know any of the accused persons prior to the occurrence. He also admitted that he did not tell before police the name of any of the accused persons, who assaulted the deceased. 20. A dispassionate scrutiny of the testimony of these six eye witnesses reveals that immediately after the occurrence, PW-1 informed PW-3, father of Bomjen Gapak about the occurrence, where he did not mention about any of the accused. In his previous statement before police also, he did not mention the name of the accused persons, rather, he stated that due to haste and darkness, he could not see clearly the faces of the accused persons. Though he identified the accused No. 1, Ramesh Taku in the TIP, from his own admission in his evidence, that he was shown the accused person in the police station before the TIP, demolished the credibility of the TIP. His previous statement before police, that due to darkness and suddenness of the occurrence he could not recognize any one at the time of occurrence certainly raises serious doubt on his claim that he would be able to identify the assailants. His previous statement before police, that due to darkness and suddenness of the occurrence he could not recognize any one at the time of occurrence certainly raises serious doubt on his claim that he would be able to identify the assailants. The evidence of the PW-1 that he was called to police station on many occasions to identify the suspects but he could not recognize any of them, coupled with the fact of holding the selective TIP only for the accused No. 1, and not subjecting the other accused to the TIP, also cast serious doubt on his identification of the appellants in court. Evidently the claims of the PW-1 that he could recognize the assailant is contradictory to his previous statement before police. All these facts and circumstances, in our considered view, rendered the identification of the appellants in court for the first time by PW-1 extremely doubtful. PW-2 also did not state in his previous statement under Section 161 CrPC the name of any of the accused persons, and in fact, he also cannot be said to have identified the accused person for the first time in court, inasmuch as, admittedly he was present in court, when the evidence of PW-1 was recorded and he had the opportunity to be acquainted with the appellants and to know their names remaining present in court during examination of PW-1. This apart, implicating two of the accused during evidence by name, who were not even present in court further fortify the fact that the PW-2 had the opportunity to be acquainted with the appellants before deposing in court. Therefore, the so called identification of the appellants in court by the PW-2 also hardly deserves any credibility. As we have already noticed, the presence of PW6 at the scene of occurrence was itself doubtful. The PW-5 also did not name any of the appellant in his previous statement, rather, his categorical statement was that, he could recognize only one tall boy by face whereas, while deposing in court he gave a vivid description implicating all the appellants attributing specific overt act to them. This witness also admitted in his evidence that he could know all the appellants during trial. This witness also admitted in his evidence that he could know all the appellants during trial. Though, PW-5 could not recognize the assailant at the time of occurrence, except a tall boy, he did not identify any of the accused as the said tall boy whom he could recognize by face at the scene of occurrence. Evidently, the PW-5 also had the opportunity to be acquainted with the appellants during trial before he adduced his evidence. PW-7 also deposed that he did not know any of the appellants before the occurrence and could know the name of Ramesh Taku after his arrest. PW-4 also did not tell the name of any of the accused in his previous statement under Section 161 CrPC. The PW-4 also admittedly could know the appellants after their arrest and learnt their names during trial. Apparently, this witness also did not tell in his previous statement regarding any of the appellant. What therefore crystallizes is that all the PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 who claimed to be eye witness did not mention the name of any of the appellant in their previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC nor the name of any of the appellant was mentioned in the FIR. Though all the witnesses claimed to have recognized the assailant, no TIP was held for identification of the appellant, except for one. Though, TIP was held for one of the accused, namely, Ramesh Taku, except PW-1, other witnesses, who were also present at the scene of occurrence, were kept away from the TIP. As already noticed, the so called TIP was a farce. Evidently, all the PWs were given the opportunity to be acquainted with and know the name of the appellant before they deposed in court. As already noticed, the so called TIP was a farce. Evidently, all the PWs were given the opportunity to be acquainted with and know the name of the appellant before they deposed in court. When the prosecution witnesses who claimed to be eye witnesses did not mention the name of any of the appellant in their previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and they were given the opportunity to know the appellant after their arrest and before deposing in court, and all of them implicated the appellants and identified them in court by name, including the absentee accused, such identification can hardly be called identification in court for the first time, for the simple reason, that all the eye witnesses were given the opportunity to be acquainted with the appellant either by police or by way of their presence in court even before adducing evidence or deposing in court. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no credibility can be attached to oral testimony of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 and their identifying of the appellants in court. 21. In Dana Yadav @ Dahu and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the evidentiary value of the identification in court held as under: "38. (e) Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court should not form the basis of conviction, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade is a check valve to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law. (f) In exceptional circumstances only, as discussed above, evidence of identification for the first time in court, without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form the basis of conviction. (f) In exceptional circumstances only, as discussed above, evidence of identification for the first time in court, without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form the basis of conviction. (g) Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the first information report, his identification by witnesses in court, should not be relied upon, especially when they did not disclose name of the accused before the police, but to this general rule there may be exception as enumerated above." 22. In Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "50. It is clear that identification of accused persons by a witness in the dock for the first time though permissible but cannot be given credence without further corroborative evidence. Though some of the witnesses, identified some of the accused in the dock as mentioned above without corroborative evidence the dock identification alone cannot be treated as substantial evidence, through it is permissible." 23. In Mulla Vs. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508, the Apex Court observed that identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court should not form the basis of conviction. In Bharam Prasaram Kudkachkar Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) AIR SC 570, the Apex Court observed that mere evidence of identification for the first time in court is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused. 24. In Hem Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 6 SCC 748 , the Apex Court observed that identification for the first time in court is permissible in law. The said principle however, should be applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Court, as is well known, ordinarily, do not given much credence to identification made in court for the first time and that too after a long time. 25. Though, identification in court for the first time is a substantive evidence and permitted by law, the evidentiary value or its credibility always depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, no one mentioned about any of the appellants in their previous statement. 25. Though, identification in court for the first time is a substantive evidence and permitted by law, the evidentiary value or its credibility always depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, no one mentioned about any of the appellants in their previous statement. All the witnesses had the opportunity to see and know the appellants after their arrest and they also came to know the name of the appellants during the trial before they deposed in court and/or thereafter identified the appellants in court. In view of the above facts and circumstances in our considered opinion no credibility can be attached to the identification of the appellants for the first time in court by PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. 26. Pw-25 deposed that on the basis of the FSL report, he could identify and seized the vehicle bearing registered number AR-01-E-0440, and arrested the accused Ramesh Tako who was the de facto owner of the said vehicle. PW-25 further deposed, that on the basis of confession of accused Ramesh Tako, he arrested the other accused persons. It is evident from the oral testimony of PW-25, that he seized the vehicle allegedly used by the accused persons on the basis of the testimony of PW-22, Dr. P. Paul Ramesh, Scientific Officer, who examined the CC TV footage. According to him, the CC TV footage had shown a black picture of a grey colour vehicle taking a turn. According to him, because of poor resolution, he could not identify the car number. According to PW-22, he could ascertain the colour of the vehicle to be greyish blue which was found taking a turn in the street. All the PWs stated that the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants was kept parked at the place of occurrence and the weapon of offence (dao) was brought out from the backside of the said car whereby they assaulted the victim. If the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses is believed, then it is difficult to say, that the vehicle found taking turn in the CC TV footage was the vehicle used by the assailants. If the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses is believed, then it is difficult to say, that the vehicle found taking turn in the CC TV footage was the vehicle used by the assailants. This apart, the colour of a vehicle is not a unique characteristic, to identify a vehicle on the basis of mere colour, unless there is evidence on record, that only a single vehicle of a particular brand has been produced by the concerned automobile company. There is no evidence on record, that only a single vehicle of grey colour was produced by the concerned automobile company. Evidently, the PW-25 identified and seized the vehicle on the basis of the report of PW-22, who deposed, that the colour of the vehicle was grey and arrested the appellant Ramesh Tako being the owner in possession of the said vehicle. When colour of the vehicle is not a unique characteristic to identify a vehicle and also all the witnesses have stated that the vehicle was kept parked at the place of occurrence, whereas the CC TV footage, which was sent for examination reflected, that the vehicle was found taking turn, it is difficult to comprehend that the vehicle, which was seized by police and belonged to one of the appellant was used in the offence. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution appears to be too fragile in order to connect the seized vehicle No. AR-01E-0440 with the commission of offence in the instant case. 27. Another circumstances relied by the learned trial court was the recovery of the Dao on the basis of disclosure statement of Ramesh Taku. According to PW-25, the Investigating Officer, the Dao being the weapon of the offence was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused from a marshy land at Village-Ganga, where it was found kept in a white gunny bag. According to PW-25, the said 'dao' was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Ramesh Taku in presence of PW-17 Kongo Taku and PW-20, Techi Nake. According to PW-17, police took his signature on Ext.3, recovery memo, in his house. He also denied the contents of the Ext.3. According to him, police came to his house and told that a 'Dao' was thrown by brother of Ramesh Taku, but same could not be found. According to PW-17, police took his signature on Ext.3, recovery memo, in his house. He also denied the contents of the Ext.3. According to him, police came to his house and told that a 'Dao' was thrown by brother of Ramesh Taku, but same could not be found. This witness, however, was not declared hostile nor his statement was disowned by prosecution. PW-20, the other witness of Ext.3, recovery memo, stated that police came to his house as landlord of accused Ramesh Taku, but did not find anything after search of his house. However, this witness was declared hostile. During cross examination of this witness, prosecution sought to elicit, that after lifting the bed of the accused Ramesh Taku, a long Dao measuring about 30" in rusted condition was found kept inside the gunny bag in the bedroom of the accused Ramesh Taku. What is therefore apparent from the testimony of PW-20 and his cross examination that prosecution sought to elicit from this witness that the alleged weapon of offence was recovered from under the bed of the accused Ramesh Taku, whereas, the testimony of PW-25 was that it was recovered from the marshy land at Village Ganga. The above evidence of PW-17 and PW-20, who did not support the evidence of PW-25 with regard to recovery of Dao, rendered the prosecution version as to recovery of the alleged weapon of offence doubtful for the simple reason, that prosecution itself is coming out with two version with regard to the place of recovery of 'Dao'. 28. Evidently, the seized 'Dao' was not sent to FSL for chemical or serological test and as such, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a 'Dao' was recovered, there was no further material on record to connect it with the commission of offence. When evidence with regard to recovery of the Dao on the basis of disclosure statement has not been supported by independent witnesses and prosecution also have come forward with two version as to the place of recovery of the Dao, this circumstance relied by the learned trial court with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence too, in our considered view, cannot be held to have been proved beyond doubt. 29. 29. When none of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the name of the appellants or any other accuseds in their previous statement, FIR is silent about the identity of the assailant, the so called TIP was a farce identification of the appellant for the first time in court is found totally unworthy of inspiring confidence and the recovery of the vehicle allegedly used by the appellant as well as the recovery of weapon have not been proved beyond doubt, prosecution, can by no stretch of imagination be held to have proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and allowed all the three appeals. The appellants be released and set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 30. Send down the LCR.