JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2014 passed by Sri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 353/149, 307/149, 324/149 and 302/149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Ac t, and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25(1-b)a /26/27/35 of the ARMS ACT and both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with hard labour and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3 02/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of the fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3 07/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3 53 /149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 3 24 /149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Ac t and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the offences and for non-payment of the fine amount would entail additional simple imprisonment for six months each; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 17 C.L.A. Act; rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-a)/35 and 25 (1-b)/35 of the ARMS ACT and non-payment of the fine amount would lead to additional simple imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for the offence under Section 26 /35 and 27/35 of the ARMS ACT along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and nonpayment of fine would lead to additional simple imprisonment for each of the sections. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. 2,000/- each and nonpayment of fine would lead to additional simple imprisonment for each of the sections. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbayan of Indubhushan Kumar recorded on 19.11.2009 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 2 p.m. the informant and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda in an anti-land mine vehicle, when at around 02:25 p.m. as the vehicle had crossed a pool constructed over Bhakhar Canal a huge explosion occurred and the anti-land mine vehicle went up in the air and dashed with a tree considerably damaging the vehicle. All the passengers in the vehicle received injuries on account of the vehicle getting disbalanced due to the blast. The informant realized that the land mines were planted by the extremist organization MCC. Before the informant and the police force could regain composure firing started from three sides and the police force were directed to surrender by the extremists. One person was taking the name of other extremists and directing them to fire and snatch the firearms from the police personnel. The informant and the police force started making retaliatory firing upon the extremists due to which the extremists could not approach the land mine vehicle. In the meantime, the informant searched out his mobile and informed the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, S.D.P.O., Ghatsila about the incident with request to send reinforcements. Immediately reinforcement arrived at which the extremists started fleeing away. A search was made in the nearby areas and various incriminating articles were recovered. The injured were sent to the Hospital and at 10:00 p.m. the informant came to know that Sub-Inspector Ramjatan Baitha had succumbed to his injuries. Based on the aforesaid allegations Gurabanda P.S. Case No.16 of 2009 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 44 of 2011. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 147 , 148, 353, 307, 324, 302/149 I.P.C. Section 3 /4 Explosive Substance Ac t, 17 C.L.A. Act and Section 25 (1-b) a/ 26/27/35 ARMS ACT which were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 147 , 148, 353, 307, 324, 302/149 I.P.C. Section 3 /4 Explosive Substance Ac t, 17 C.L.A. Act and Section 25 (1-b) a/ 26/27/35 ARMS ACT which were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1- Sanatan Manjhi has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 2.30 p.m., the police were going towards Gurabanda P.S. in an anti land mine vehicle and when the vehicle reached the culvert in front of Bhakhar river an explosion took place which threw the vehicle in the air. From the jungle and bushes firing started. There were orders to surround the police force. When he and the others resorted to firing, the extremists fled away. Several police personnel suffered injuries and they were taken to T.M.H. for treatment. In course of treatment Ram Jatan Baitha had died. P.W. 2 Narpati Sinku has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 2.25 p.m., he and the others were going from Shyamsunder P.S. to Gurabanda P.S. in an anti land mines vehicle and as soon as the vehicle crossed the Bhakhar Canal, there was a loud explosion and the vehicle dashed against a tree. All of a sudden indiscriminate firing started and there were orders of committing the murders of police personnel and snatching their arms and ammunitions. The extremists were taking the name of Ravi, Rajesh, Gulam Dada and Lalit Dada. Counter firing was resorted to by the police personnel. Due to this incident constable Permanand, Sanatan Manjhi (the driver of the vehicle) and others were injured. In cross examination he has deposed that he and other police personnel were sitting inside the anti land mine vehicle. P.W. 3 Simon Logun has stated that on 19.11.2009, he and the others were going in an anti land mine vehicle from Shyamsunder P.S. to Gurabanda P.S. and near Bhakhar Canal there was a blast which damaged the vehicle. There was firing from both sides. He also suffered injuries. In cross examination he has deposed that he was treated for his wounds. There was firing from both sides. He also suffered injuries. In cross examination he has deposed that he was treated for his wounds. P.W. 4 Rajesh Kumar has stated that he was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police in Gurabanda P.S. He had registered Gurabanda P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009 based on the self statement of Indu Bhushan Kumar. He has proved the requisition of the First Information Report which has been marked as Ext. 1. The handwriting and signature in the self statement of Indu Bhushan Kumar has been marked as Ext. 2/(i) and 1/(i). The seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext. 2. The seizure list was prepared regarding seizure of a 7.65 mm pistol, 14 live cartridges, 3 live cartridges, electric wire, etc. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a culvert constructed over Bhakhar Canal between Singhpura village and Bhakhar village. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 3. He had recorded the statements of independent witnesses Mangal Hansda and Meghram Hansda. He had recorded the restatement of the informant at TMH and had also recorded the statements of Narpati Sinku, Nand Kishore Mahto, Simon Logun, Permanand Mahato, Jitendra Thakur, Sanatan Manjhi and Brahmdeo Yadav. On 21.12.2009, the Officer-in-Charge of Shyamsunderpur P.S. had arrested Nijam and his confessional statement was recorded. Rakhohari Ruidas and Kajal Pramanik were arrested from the Jungle. The confessional statement of Kajal Pramanik and Rakhohari Ruidas have been proved and marked as Ext. 4 and 4/(i). On 09.01.2010, the postmortem report of Ram Jatan Baitha was received. A Test Identification Parade was held in which Narpati Sinku and Nand Kishore Mahto had identified the accused. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the Magistrate conducting the Test Identification Parade in the Test Identification Chart which have been marked as Ext. 5 and 5/(i). He had received the sanction order from the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Based on the supervision of the higher officials he has submitted charge sheet against Rakhohari Ruidas, Kajal Pramanik and Rizwan Ansari. In cross examination he has deposed that he had conducted the Test Identification Parade. He had not involved the villagers who had witnessed the incident from behind the bushes in the Test Identification Parade. Based on the supervision of the higher officials he has submitted charge sheet against Rakhohari Ruidas, Kajal Pramanik and Rizwan Ansari. In cross examination he has deposed that he had conducted the Test Identification Parade. He had not involved the villagers who had witnessed the incident from behind the bushes in the Test Identification Parade. P.W. 5 Nand Kishore Mahto has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 2.25 p.m. he along with other police personnel were going in an anti land mine vehicle from Shyamsunder P.S. to Gurabanda P.S. and after crossing the Bhakhar Canal, a blast occurred followed by indiscriminate firing. He had seen 5-7 persons fleeing towards the jungle. Some persons were approaching the damaged vehicle and he and the others also started firing. He has stated that ASI Ram Janam Baitha died due to the encounter. He and several other police personnel had suffered injuries. He has identified the persons present in the dock as the extremists who had resorted to firing. He identified them in the TIP also. In cross examination he has deposed that he had identified all the three accused in TIP. He has claimed to identify the accused for the first time in Court. P.W. 6 Rajendra Bhaduri did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary was posted as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicines, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur and on 20.11.2009 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ram Janam Baitha and had found the following: Biddle prick right side of neck, right cubital region, Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.25 cm. Muscle deep over right occipital scalp Abrasion 3 cm. x 2.5 cm. over knight left leg in front. 2 cm. x 1 cm. over middle aspect of lower part of right leg. 1.5 cm. x 2 cm, 5 cm. x 2 cm. over right hand Darsal Aspect 8 cm. x 3 cm. over outer and middle part of thigh 1 cm. x 1 cm. over, Lumber region, 5 cm. x 5 cm. over right Ankle, Bruise 9 cm. x 3 cm. over right leg front. On dissection right side of occipital scalp contused 7 cm. x 6 cm. Whole Brain contused, Anterior chest wall contused all ribs fractured, left lung contused, right lung dry. x 1 cm. over, Lumber region, 5 cm. x 5 cm. over right Ankle, Bruise 9 cm. x 3 cm. over right leg front. On dissection right side of occipital scalp contused 7 cm. x 6 cm. Whole Brain contused, Anterior chest wall contused all ribs fractured, left lung contused, right lung dry. Vicera pale, gall bladder empty stomach contain semi digested food, death caused of death head injury all above injury except A are caused by hard and blunt substance object (blast) time since death between 12 hours to 18 hours approximately. The cause of death was opined to be due to head injuries. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 8 Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 1:30 p.m. he along with the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda P.S. in an anti-land mine vehicle and as soon as they crossed the culvert near the canal, a blast had taken place which damaged the vehicle and injured him and the others. The extremists were goading them to surrender otherwise they will be eliminated. There was a firing from both the sides. He was treated at the Hospital. In cross-examination he has deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the incident. P.W. 9 Indu Bhushan Kumar is the informant who has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 2:25 p.m. he and the other police personnel were going on an anti-land mine vehicle from Shyamsunderpur P.S. to Gurabanda P.S. and as soon as they crossed Bhakhar Canal, there was a loud explosion and the vehicle was severely damaged. There was indiscriminate firing being done by the extremists mainly Kanhu Munda, Putru, Hulas, Ravi, Supoy, Dhandhru, Phogra and others and Kanhu Munda was ordering the other extremists to surround the vehicle. He had called the Superintendent of Police on his mobile informing him about the attack by extremists. An Ambulance was sent to bring the injured police personnel who were sent for treatment. The extremists who were firing were Kanho Munda, Putru, Hulas, Supoy, Ravi, Phogra, Rajendra and others. He has identified Shobha Munda and Sukhendu in the dock. He had not seen the other two persons who were in the dock as he was lying injured. P.W. 10 Dr. The extremists who were firing were Kanho Munda, Putru, Hulas, Supoy, Ravi, Phogra, Rajendra and others. He has identified Shobha Munda and Sukhendu in the dock. He had not seen the other two persons who were in the dock as he was lying injured. P.W. 10 Dr. Jayant Kumar Layak was posted in the Department of Orthopaedic in Tata Main Hospital and on 19.11.2009 he had examined Jitendra Thakur and had found the following: i. Contusion pelvic area, X-ray, fracture lumber vertebra grievous injury ii. Contusion right lower leg simple injury. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. On the same he had examined Sanatan Manjhi and had found the following injuries: Dorsal area, D.V. fracture grievous injury The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. He had also examined Nand Kishore Mahto and had found the following injuries on his person: Right side Pelvic region fracture L II vertebra The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. On the same he had examined Simon Lugun and had found the following: Contusion right shoulder, pelvic area on X-ray fracture grievous injury. Left knee and leg simple injury The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature. He had also examined Permanand Mahto and had found the following: Injury right side chest simple contusion right side of chest, contusion in spine regions The injury on the right side of the chest was found to be simple in nature while the contusion was opined to be grievous. The injury reports have been proved and marked as Ext. 8, 8/(i), 8/(ii), 8/(iii), 8/(iv). The comments on the injury report have been proved and marked as Ext. 9 to 9(iv). He has proved his comment in the injury reports which have been marked as Ext.9 to 9/IV P.W. 11 Kamal Nath Munda was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police in Gurabanda P.S. and he has produced the seized articles in Court. The 4 live cartridges were produced before the Court and the signature have been marked as Ext. y to y(xiii). Three empty cartridges were produced and the signature have been marked as Ext. 2, 2/(i) and 2(ii). The signature in the magazine have been marked as Ext. x and x(i). 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the offence. 6. y to y(xiii). Three empty cartridges were produced and the signature have been marked as Ext. 2, 2/(i) and 2(ii). The signature in the magazine have been marked as Ext. x and x(i). 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the offence. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants that none of witnesses have even whispered about the appellants being involved in the blast or in the indiscriminate firing upon the police personnel. Merely because the appellants were identified in the Test Identification Parade, the same would not fortify the case of the prosecution in absence of any corroborative evidence. PW-2 is another witness who was present with PW-5, but he has failed to identify the appellants in the Test Identification Parade. 7. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned APP has submitted that the blast was triggered by the extremists followed by indiscriminate firing which resulted in the death of a police personnel and injuries to several others. The identification of the appellants in the Test Identification Parade by PW-5 prove beyond doubt about the active participation of the appellants in the mayhem unleashed upon the police personnel. 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 9. A land mine blast triggered by the extremists propelled the anti land mine vehicle of the police into the air and crashed on the ground after dashing against a tree. Several police personnel received injuries due to the land mine blast. This was followed by indiscriminate firing with the leader of the extremist group asking his cadres to surround the vehicle and unleash further devastation. Timely arrival of reinforcements prevented further damage and the injured were quickly shifted in Ambulance for their medical treatment. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9 were all present in the anti land mine vehicle and several of them had suffered injuries due to the blast and its aftermath. PW-9 who is the informant has named some persons as being a part of the extremist group, but the name of the appellants does not figure in his evidence. None of the witnesses have taken the name of the appellants in any form. PW-9 who is the informant has named some persons as being a part of the extremist group, but the name of the appellants does not figure in his evidence. None of the witnesses have taken the name of the appellants in any form. However, PW-5 in the Test Identification Parade has identified both the appellants and they were said to be indulging in firing. PW-2 is another police personnel who was present with PW-5, but he has failed to identify any of the appellants. The evidentiary value of the Test Identification Parade gains strength when there are other corroborative evidences to support such identification. In fact the identification of the appellants gets discounted further as even PW- 9, the informant has not identified them in the dock though he had identified Subha Munda and Shubhendu. It would therefore be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-5 in the context of the identification of the appellants in the Test Identification Parade in absence of there being any corroborative evidence which would even hint at a semblance of role played by the appellants in resorting to indiscriminate firing upon the police personnel. 10. The overall conspectus of the case leads us to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and consequent to the above, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2014 passed by Sri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011. 11. This appeal is allowed. Since the appellants are in custody, they are directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.