JUDGMENT : Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.12.2003 & 24.12.2003 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-VI, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 171/98 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I for a period of three months. 2. The prosecution story in brief, as stated in the fardbeyan of the informant (Surendra Prasad Chaudhary) recorded on 19.11.1996 at about 10.00 AM, is that on 19.11.1996, the informant and his brother were going to the Village-Peto on a motorcycle. When they reached near Patra Bridge at 9.15 AM, one black colour Bullet motorcycle and one black colour Suzuki motorcycle came. Three persons were sitting on each motor cycle. When the informant and his brother were at a distance of ½ KM from Patra Bridge, the riders of one motorcycle asked the informant to stop his motorcycle and thereafter they abused and pushed them down with the help of their motorcycle. The informant and his brother fell down and thereafter the accused persons started assaulting them. Accused Umesh Ojha told accused Lakhan Sao ‘Kya Dekhte Ho Maro Sale Ko’ and then accused Lakhan Sao took out revolver from his waist and started assaulting on the chest of the informant by the barrel of revolver. The other accused persons also assaulted the informant and his brother and looted their motorcycle, helmet, money and watches. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Keradari P.S. Case No. 79/96 was lodged under Section 395 of the IPC against accused Umesh Ojha, Lakhan Sao and other four accused persons. Thereafter, the police reached Manatu forest and arrested seven persons including the appellants and also recovered the looted motorcycle as well as the other motorcycles used for committing the said offence. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the seven accused persons under Sections 395/412 of the IPC on 11.02.1997. The cognizance was taken vide order dated 13.02.1997 for the offences under Sections 395/412 of the IPC. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the seven accused persons under Sections 395/412 of the IPC on 11.02.1997. The cognizance was taken vide order dated 13.02.1997 for the offences under Sections 395/412 of the IPC. The charges were framed against all seven accused persons vide order dated 12.08.1998 under Section 395 of the IPC and the charge under Section 412 of the IPC was also framed against accused Mariyanus Ekka. Out of seven accused persons, four subsequently absconded after framing of charge and as such their cases were split up and the cases of the rest three accused persons (the appellants herein), namely, Sachin Prakash, Nasim Ansari and Samim Ansari were tried. 5. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W.1- Narayan Choudhary is the brother of the informant. P.W.2-Surender Prasad Choudhary is the informant. P.W.3-Raju Mahto and P.W.4-Kundan Mahto are the eye-witnesses, who have been declared hostile. P.W.5-Nand Kishore Ojha and P.W. 6-Murlidhar Tiwari are the seizure-list witnesses, who have also been declared hostile. P.W.7-Mathura Rai is a formal witness, who has proved the FIR. One Court Witness C.W.1-Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate has also been examined to prove the TIP conducted for identification of the accused persons. The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which they denied the allegations levelled against them. Defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1-Milman Paul Sanga has deposed that the police had come to the village in search of accused Umesh Ojha and had taken appellant Sachin Prakash with them. D.W.2-Devid Tirkey has deposed that the police team had come to the house of appellant Sachin Prakash and had taken him with them. 6. Learned Trial Court, relying on the documents and evidences available on record, held the appellants guilty of the alleged offences convicting and sentencing them as indicated herein above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence on the ground that the appellants had not been identified by the prosecution witnesses, rather they had named only one accused before the police who was called by another accused as Umesh Ojha while he was driving the Suzuki motorcycle. It is settled law that no conviction can be made on the basis of wrong identification. It is settled law that no conviction can be made on the basis of wrong identification. There is no direct allegation against appellant Naseem Ansari. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. The TIP was conducted to justify the arrest of the appellants in which the brother of the informant (P.W.1) had allegedly identified the appellants. In fact, P.W.1 has himself stated in the Court on oath that he did not identify any of the persons involved in the alleged offence. The learned Trial Court did not scrutinize the evidences of the witnesses in right perspective and also failed to appreciate the possibilities of doubtful identification. None of the witnesses had got the occasion to see the miscreants and they have wrongly identified the appellants. Moreover, nothing has come on record that any independent person has identified the accused persons, which also suggests that the prosecution case is false, concocted and instituted with ulterior motive. P.Ws. 5 & 6 are the seizure witnesses of a looted black colour motorcycle which was not recovered from the possession of the appellants and hence they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, there is no participation of the appellants in the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the time of occurrence. In the present case, the investigating officer has also not been examined. There are several contradictions amongst the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the learned Trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellants. 8. Per-contra, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State submits that since P.Ws. 1 & 2 have supported the case of the prosecution and they have also identified the appellants in the Court, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence needs no interference. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has not found any infirmity in the TIP conducted for identification of the accused persons. Though some more persons not involved in alleged offence had also been identified by the prosecution witnesses, yet that may not be a ground for casting doubt on the identification during the T.I.P particularly when the accused persons had also been identified. The alleged occurrence occurred in broad day light and as such the identification of the accused persons was quite obvious. 9. The alleged occurrence occurred in broad day light and as such the identification of the accused persons was quite obvious. 9. P.W.1-Narayan Choudhary is the brother of the informant who has deposed that he had accompanied the informant at the time of the alleged occurrence. The accused persons came on two motorcycles and dashed their motorcycle from behind due to which they fell down from the motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused persons assaulted them and also snatched money. The said witness also deposed that though he had not identified any of the accused persons, yet one person named Umesh Ojha was shouting ‘Lakhan Maro’. The accused persons went from there with the looted motorcycle of the informant. The T.I.P was conducted in the Jail where he identified five accused persons. In the Court, he identified appellant Sachin Prakash. 10. P.W.2-Surendra Prasad Choudhary is the informant of the case. He has deposed that on 19.11.1996, he was going from Hazaribagh to Keradari with his brother Shri Narayan Choudhary on Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle. When they reached near Patra Bridge, two motorcycles came there. Three persons each were riding the said two motor cycles. The accused persons intercepted them and dashed their motorcycle due to which they fell down. Thereafter, accused Umesh Ojha said ‘Lakhan Kya Dekhte Ho Maro Sale Ko’. Lakhan Sao took out revolver from his waist and started assaulting him by the barrel of revolver on the chest. Another accused person assaulted him with foot and fist. The accused persons also assaulted P.W.1. One accused person of dark complexion took his motorcycle and another accused person snatched his helmet, wrist watch and money. He proved his fardbeyan as Ext.1. He has further deposed that he had participated in the T.I.P and had identified the accused persons, namely, Shamim Ansari, Nasim Ansari and Lakhan Sao. He also claimed that he had identified accused Umesh Ojha. 11. C.W.1-Praveen Kumar Sinha is a Judicial Magistrate in whose presence the T.I.P of the accused persons was conducted. He has deposed that Narayan Choudhary had identified the accused persons, namely, Sachin Prakash @ Raja, Lakhan Sao @ Naresh Sao and Samim Ansari. He has further deposed that P.W.1 had stated that appellant Sachin Prakash had snatched money, wrist watch and Helmet. Lakhan Sao had assaulted his brother with the barrel of revolver. Samim Ansari had taken his motor cycle. He has further deposed that P.W.1 had stated that appellant Sachin Prakash had snatched money, wrist watch and Helmet. Lakhan Sao had assaulted his brother with the barrel of revolver. Samim Ansari had taken his motor cycle. He has further deposed that P.W.1 had also identified one Baleshwar Singh and the informant had identified the accused persons, namely, Lakhan Sao, Samim Ansari, Nasim Ansari and told that they had assaulted him. The informant further identified another person, namely, Tiger. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are liable to be set aside. In the present case, the independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 3 & 4 who were projected by the prosecution as the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, have been declared hostile by the prosecution, as they did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, the seizure list witnesses have also been declared hostile. The investigating officer has also not been examined by the prosecution. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence have been passed relying on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, said to have been supported by C.W.1. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had identified the appellants during the T.I.P as well as in the Court and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence have rightly been passed. 13. On perusal of the lower Court records, it transpires that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.11.1996 and the T.I.P was held on 21.12.1996 i.e. after about one month from the date of the alleged occurrence. Though P.W.1 had identified appellant Sachin Prakash, yet he did not depose about his specific role in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, during his examination, he has also deposed that he had not identified any accused person. P.W.2 had not identified appellant Sachin Prakash in the T.I.P, but he had identified appellant Naseem Ansari. Though C.W.1 has deposed that during the T.I.P, P.W.1 had stated about the specific role of appellant Sachin Prakash in the alleged occurrence and also about snatching of money, watch and helmet by the said appellant, however, P.W.1 did not depose such fact before the Court. Though C.W.1 has deposed that during the T.I.P, P.W.1 had stated about the specific role of appellant Sachin Prakash in the alleged occurrence and also about snatching of money, watch and helmet by the said appellant, however, P.W.1 did not depose such fact before the Court. C.W.1 has also deposed that P.W.1 had also identified a person who was not involved in the alleged occurrence. During the T.I.P, though the informant (P.W.2) had identified appellant Naseem Anasari, yet he also identified some other persons who were not involved in the alleged occurrence. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellants on the sole ground of their identification in the Court, more so when the T.I.P was conducted after a delay of about one month. 14. In the case of Mulla Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 508, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “47. It is important to note that since the conviction of the accused was based only on the identification at the test identification parade, the Court in Subash case[ (1987) 3 SCC 331 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 573] gave him the benefit of doubt while upholding the conviction of the co-accused. This is also a case where the conviction of the appellant was based solely on the evidence of identification. There being a delay in holding the test identification parade and in the absence of corroborative evidence, this Court found it unsafe to uphold his conviction. 55. The identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is twofold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Therefore, the following principles regarding identification parade emerge: (1) an identification parade ideally must be conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistake on the part of witnesses; (2) this condition can be revoked if proper explanation justifying the delay is provided; and (3) the authorities must make sure that the delay does not result in exposure of the accused which may lead to mistakes on the part of the witnesses.” 15. In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1999) 8 SCC 428 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “4. This Court in State of A.P. v. M.V. Ramana Reddy (Dr) [ (1991) 4 SCC 536 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 1018 : AIR 1991 SC 1938 ] held that where there is unexplained delay in holding the identification parade, the evidence of the prosecution regarding identity of an accused cannot be held absolutely reliable and in such a case the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The explanation for delay in holding the identification parade offered by the prosecution in the instant case is not trustworthy. The non-availability of a Magistrate in a city like Bombay for over a period of five weeks from the date of the arrest of Accused 1 and 2 and three weeks from the arrest of Accused 3 and 4 cannot be accepted. It is not denied that scores of Magistrates are available in the city of Bombay and that the investigating agency was not obliged to get the parade conducted from a specified Magistrate. The High Court was not justified in holding that the parade could not be held early on account of alleged difficulties of the Special Executive Magistrate. It was not for the defence to prove that the parade held was suffering from legal infirmities because, admittedly, the onus of proof in criminal case never shifts as the accused is presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise, beyond all reasonable doubts, by the prosecution. It was not for the defence to prove that the parade held was suffering from legal infirmities because, admittedly, the onus of proof in criminal case never shifts as the accused is presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise, beyond all reasonable doubts, by the prosecution. In cases where a person is alleged to have committed the offence and is not previously known to the witnesses, it is obligatory on the part of the investigating agency to hold identification parade for the purposes of enabling the witnesses to identify the person alleged to have committed the offence. The absence of test identification may not be fatal if the accused is known or sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement. Such a parade may not be necessary in a case where the accused person is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of identifying the accused person at the trial, for the first time, is from its very nature, inherently of a weak character. This Court in Budhsen v. State of U.P. [ (1970) 2 SCC 128 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 343] held that the evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances the complainant or the witnesses came to pick out the accused person and the details of the part which such persons played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The test identification is considered as a safe rule of prudence for corroboration. Though the holding of the identification proceedings may not be substantive evidence, yet such proceedings are used for corroboration purposes in order to believe or not the involvement of the person brought before the court for the commission of the crime. The holding of identification parade being a rule of prudence is required to be followed strictly in accordance with the settled position of law and expeditiously. The delay, if any, has to be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution.” 16. The holding of identification parade being a rule of prudence is required to be followed strictly in accordance with the settled position of law and expeditiously. The delay, if any, has to be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution.” 16. It may be construed that to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime as also to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence, the T.I.P is required to be conducted without any delay. However, if any delay is caused in conducting the T.I.P, the same by itself may not be fatal, if the delay is properly explained. 17. In the present case, the delay in conducting the T.I.P has not been explained by the prosecution. It appears that due to delay in conducting the T.I.P, the witnesses also identified some other persons who were not involved in the alleged occurrence, which suggests that at the time of the T.I.P, the faces of the accused persons were washed out from their mind. Though in the suggestion put by the defence to the said prosecution witnesses that they had seen the accused persons before the T.I.P, has been denied by them, however, the possibility of the same cannot be ruled out. Thus, in my view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 18. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 22.12.2003 & 24.12.2003 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-VI, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 171/98 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds furnished in this case.