JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants, who are A-2 and A-3 in S.C. No.334/98 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, was tried for the offence u/s 395 r/w 397 IPC along with the accused in S.C. No.376/03, who is A-1 in the said incident. Three other accused, viz., A-4, A-5 and A-6, who were also involved in the said incident, having absconded, the case against the said accused were separated and the same is pending in S.C. No.642/03. 2. The above three accused were tried for the offence u/s 395 r/w 397 IPC by the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge and on being found guilty, they were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by A-2 and A-3 in S.C. No.334/98. 3. The facts, in brief, is stated hereunder for better appreciation of the matter :- P.W.1 was returning from Singapore on the midnight of 4.1.92. After clearing the immigration and customs check, P.W.1 came out and he was accompanied by P.W.s 2 and 3 in the auto of A-1, who normally takes P.W.1 whenever he returns from abroad. P.W.s 1 to 3 boarded the auto of A-1 and proceeded to their home at Ekkatuthangal at about 1.00 p.m. In the early morning hours. While proceeding near Sundar Nagar near M.R. Electronics, the auto in which P.W.s 1 to 3 were travelling was waylaid by the A-2 to A-6, who came in another auto. P.W.s 1 to 3 were forced to get down from the auto and after inflicting injuries with knife on P.W.s 1 to 3, A-2 to A-6 took the items belonging to P.W.1 from the auto and fled away from the said place. 4. Immediately thereafter, P.W.s 1 to 3 were taken to Balaji Hospital for treatment by A-1. On coming to know about the incident, the hospital authorities, while giving treatment to P.W.s 1 to 3, informed the jurisdictional police station. Exs.P-3, 5 and 7 are the accident register pertaining to P.W.s 1 to 3 and Exs.P-4, 6 and 8 are the wound certificate pertaining to P.W.s 1 to 3. 5. On coming to know about the incident, the hospital authorities, while giving treatment to P.W.s 1 to 3, informed the jurisdictional police station. Exs.P-3, 5 and 7 are the accident register pertaining to P.W.s 1 to 3 and Exs.P-4, 6 and 8 are the wound certificate pertaining to P.W.s 1 to 3. 5. On receipt of information about the occurrence, a case was registered in Crime No.10/92 u/s 397 IPC and FIR was prepared. On receipt of information and FIR relating to the occurrence, P.W.10, the Inspector of Police took up investigation. He proceeded to the hospital and enquired P.W.s 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch. Thereafter, P.W.10 examined P.W.s 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. P.W.10 seized M.O.s 2, 3 and 4 under the cover of mahazar. 6. P.W.10, continuing with his investigation, on information received, arrested A-1 on 6.1.92 at about 1.00 p.m. At that time, A-1 voluntarily came forward and gave a confession statement, which was reduced into writing in the presence of P.W.3 and one Muniyandi. At about 2.30 p.m. on the same day, P.W.10 arrested the absconding accused Harikrishnan, who came forward and gave a confession statement. Based on the said confession statement, a sum of Rs.12,500/- and a gold ring weighing around 30 grams were recovered under the cover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses. At about 4.00 p.m. on the same day, P.W.10 arrested another absconding accused, Jayamurthy and based on the confession given by him, seized a camera, TV assembly, calculator, etc., under cover of mahazar attested by witnesses. At about 6.00 p.m. on the same day, P.W.10 arrested A-3, Mari, and based on the admissible portion of the confession statement given by him, a bloodstained knife was seized under cover of mahazar attested by witnesses. On the same day at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.10 arrested another absconding accused, Baskar, and the auto bearing Regn. No. TMT 4438 was seized under cover of seizure mahazar attested by witnesses. On 7.1.92 the arrested accused were produced before the Court. On 9.1.92, at about 6.00 p.m., A-2, Sampath, was arrested by P.W.10 and at that time, A-2 gave a confession statement. Based on the said confession, a bloodstained knife was seized under the cover of mahazar. The auto, bearing Regn. On 7.1.92 the arrested accused were produced before the Court. On 9.1.92, at about 6.00 p.m., A-2, Sampath, was arrested by P.W.10 and at that time, A-2 gave a confession statement. Based on the said confession, a bloodstained knife was seized under the cover of mahazar. The auto, bearing Regn. No. TMJ 3946 was also seized under the cover of seizure mahazar. The accused was thereafter produced before the Court. 7. On transfer of P.W.10, P.W.11, took up investigation. He examined the witnesses already examined by P.W.10 and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 filed the final report against A-1 to A-3 charging them for the offence u/s 395 r/w 397 IPC. 8. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.s 1 to 11 in both the sessions case. While Exs.P-1 to P-33 were marked in S.C. No.334/98, Exs.P-1 to P-32 were marked in S.C. No.376/03 and M.O.s 1 to 6 were marked. The accused were, thereafter, questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and they denied it as false. Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked on the side of the accused. 9. The trial court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, found the accused/appellants herein guilty of the offence u/s 395 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/A-2 and A-3, who are accused in S.C. No.334/98. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the arrest of A-1, who was the driver of the auto in which P.W.s 1 to 3 were travelling is too synthetic to be believed. No material has been placed on record by the prosecution to show how A-1 was brought under the ambit of suspicion except for the contention that the assailants did not attack A-1. The further arrest of the other accused on the same day, that too within a space of ten hours, is unbelievable. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no test identification parade has been conducted to identify the appellants and the absence of conduct of test identification parade hits at the root of the prosecution version. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no test identification parade has been conducted to identify the appellants and the absence of conduct of test identification parade hits at the root of the prosecution version. The seizure, said to have been effected from the appellants have also not been proved by substantive evidence. There are very many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, which renders their evidence far from acceptable. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the conviction and the consequent sentence imposed upon the appellants deserve to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the evidence placed before the trial court has been appreciated in proper perspective and after detailed discussion, the trial court has held the charge proved against the appellants herein. In such a scenario, it is submitted that no interference is called for with the findings recorded by the trial court. 12. This Court bestowed its best attention to the materials available on record as also the testimonies of P.W.s 1 to 3 as also P.W.10 and the documents in support of the said contention. 13. Before taking up the evidence on record to arrive at a finding, it is to be pointed out that the occurrence is said to have taken place on the midnight of 4.1.92. The case was taken on file in the year 1998 and 2003 and judgment has been passed in the year 2004. Between the date of occurrence and passing of judgment, a period of 12 years have passed. The appeal has been filed in the year 2004 and has been pending on the file of this Court since then. 14. This Court has called for the records on the appeal being admitted. The records reveal that communications have been sent by this Court since 2011 to the trial court to submit the case records. However, even inspite of regular follow up action taken by this Court, the case records have not found its way to the vaults of this Court. From the above, it is clear that at this distant point of time, nothing will be served in keeping the matter pending for want of records as delayed justice is nothing but denied justice. However, even inspite of regular follow up action taken by this Court, the case records have not found its way to the vaults of this Court. From the above, it is clear that at this distant point of time, nothing will be served in keeping the matter pending for want of records as delayed justice is nothing but denied justice. Therefore, in such view of the matter, this Court is constrained to take up the matter with the minimal papers available in the typed set of documents and decide the case on the basis of the said records as also the findings recorded by the trial court. 15. The accused in S.C. No.376/03, viz., Gopal, who is the auto driver in which the witnesses were travelling, though has been convicted, it is informed that no appeal has been filed against the said conviction. In such a backdrop, this Court deems it fit to consider the evidence only against the appellants, who are the accused in S.C. No.334/98. 16. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3, who are the injured victims, reveals that they have identified the accused in Court for the first time. However, it is to be pointed out that the seizure of the articles, said to have been stolen by the accused from P.W.s 1 to 3 have not been proved in a manner known to law. Though P.W.10, the investigating officer in his deposition has stated that he seized the stolen articles from the respective accused under mahazar attested by witnesses, however, the witnesses, who had attested the mahazar have not been examined before Court. The deposition of P.W.10 does not reveal as to who are the witnesses, who attested the mahazar and the respective witnesses have not been examined before Court. Further, the articles, said to have been recovered from the accused, have not been identified in accordance with law. In such a backdrop, the seizure, alleged to have been made by the prosecution, becomes questionable. Once the seizure is not proved so also the materials said to have been recovered at that point of time. It is further to be pointed out that the injured witnesses have neither spoken about the overtacts clearly nor spoken about the articles stolen by the respective accused. Once the seizure is not proved so also the materials said to have been recovered at that point of time. It is further to be pointed out that the injured witnesses have neither spoken about the overtacts clearly nor spoken about the articles stolen by the respective accused. In such a scenario, the mere identification of the accused for the first time in court alone cannot be the yardstick to fasten the crime on the accused. Mere identification of persons, for the first time in the Court, by the prosecution witnesses, cannot be held against them to substantiate the charge u/s 395 r/w 397 IPC. The commission of dacoity has to be proved in conjunction with causing injuries on the witnesses. Non-establishing of the same would lead to the drawal of an adverse inference against the said recovery. The prosecution having not proved that the injuries were caused on the prosecution witnesses in the course of dacoity, shortfall in such an evidence would enure to the benefit of the accused. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellants herein is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge for which they have been convicted and sentenced. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Bail bonds furnished by the appellants/accused shall stand discharged and the appellants/accused are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless their presence/custody is required in connection with any other case.