JUDGMENT : K.SUJANA, J. This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed in S.C.No.128 of 2023 by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities Against the Women cum I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak. 2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2018 at about 2:00 a.m., five or more persons, including the accused, committed a dacoity at the house of the de facto complainant (PW1) situated at Venkateshwara Colony, Narsapur. The accused allegedly broke open the house doors, trespassed into the house, threatened the inmates with deadly weapons such as knives and an axe, and forcibly robbed substantial quantities of gold and silver ornaments and cash belonging to PW1, his wife (PW2), sister (PW3), and mother. After committing the offence, the accused tied the victims, bolted the house from outside, and fled with the booty. PW1 lodged a complaint on the morning of 08.08.2018, leading to registration of the crime under Section 395 IPC. 3. During investigation, the accused were apprehended in connection with another crime, confessional statements were recorded, stolen property was recovered, and a Test Identification Parade was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 who are appellants herein, (A2 and A4 being absconding/split up), and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, it was contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 (eye-witnesses/injured witnesses) clearly established the occurrence of dacoity and the participation of the accused. Their testimony was corroborated by PW4 (neighbour), the scene of offence panchanama, recovery of stolen property, and the Test Identification Parade conducted by a Judicial Magistrate. It was argued that minor discrepancies, if any, did not go to the root of the prosecution case and that all essential ingredients of Sections 390, 391 and 395 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. In defence, it was contended that the prosecution case suffered from inconsistencies, delay and procedural irregularities. It was contended that the accused were allegedly shown to the witnesses prior to the Test Identification Parade, thereby vitiating the identification process. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that the conviction based on a tainted identification parade was unsustainable. 5. In defence, it was contended that the prosecution case suffered from inconsistencies, delay and procedural irregularities. It was contended that the accused were allegedly shown to the witnesses prior to the Test Identification Parade, thereby vitiating the identification process. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to contend that the conviction based on a tainted identification parade was unsustainable. It was further argued that there was no reliable evidence to conclusively connect the accused with the alleged offence. 6. Upon careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 were natural, consistent, and trustworthy, and inspired confidence. Their version regarding the manner of commission of the offence, use of deadly weapons, and the number of offenders clearly established the offence of dacoity. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 corroborated the occurrence and condition of the scene of offence. 7. The trial Court examined the objections relating to the Test Identification Parade and found that the parade was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate (PW8) following due procedure. The bald allegation of the accused that they were shown to the witnesses earlier was held to be insufficient, especially in the absence of specific details. The trial Court held that vague objections do not invalidate the identification proceedings. The recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, proved through panch witnesses and investigating officers, further strengthened the prosecution case. Hence, it concluded that all the essential ingredients of dacoity under Section 395 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5. 8. In the result, the trial Court found Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Appeal is preferred. 9. Heard Smt B.Vani, learned counsel for appellants and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Appeal is preferred. 9. Heard Smt B.Vani, learned counsel for appellants and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She contended that the trial Court gravely erred in convicting the appellants in the absence of any independent and reliable witness, particularly when the entire prosecution case rests on interested testimony and suspicious circumstances. She further contended that the conviction is based on mere presumptions and assumptions, without any legally admissible and cogent evidence connecting the appellants to the alleged offence. She asserted that the prosecution failed to establish any clear motive or definite incriminating material and that the alleged recovery of stolen property, even if accepted, is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence, as the nexus between the offence and the recovery has not been satisfactorily proved. He averred that the Test Identification Parade is vitiated by serious discrepancies and procedural infirmities, rendering it unsafe to rely upon the same for confirming the identity of the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for appellant incessantly contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has not applied a judicious and cautious approach while assessing the prosecution witnesses, thereby, convicting the appellants without proof beyond all reasonable doubt. She lamented that the corroborative evidence relied upon by the trial Court is insufficient and unreliable, and that the sentence imposed is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged role attributed to the appellants. Therefore, she prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the trial Court, upon a careful and comprehensive appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had rightly recorded the conviction and sentence, and that there was no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment warranting interference by this Court. He contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who were victims of the offence, was cogent, consistent and trustworthy, and stood amply corroborated by independent witnesses, recovery of stolen property and the Test Identification Parade conducted by a Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law. He contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who were victims of the offence, was cogent, consistent and trustworthy, and stood amply corroborated by independent witnesses, recovery of stolen property and the Test Identification Parade conducted by a Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law. Therefore, he prayed that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 13. Having regard to the rival submissions, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, who are the de facto complainant and his family members. PW1, while speaking about the occurrence, gave a general version of the alleged dacoity but failed to attribute any specific overt acts to Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5. His testimony does not disclose distinctive physical features of the assailants, nor does it explain how he was able to clearly identify the appellants during the incident which admittedly occurred in the dead of night. PW2 and PW3, though claimed to be eye-witnesses, gave versions which are inconsistent with that of PW1 regarding the manner of entry into the house, the weapons allegedly used, and the exact sequence of events. These inconsistencies are material and create doubt about the reliability of their evidence. 14. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is also inconsistent with regard to the nature, quantity and description of the gold and silver ornaments allegedly robbed. PW1 spoke of certain ornaments, whereas PW2 and PW3 either gave differing descriptions or were unable to identify the recovered articles with certainty. None of the witnesses could point out any distinctive identification marks on the seized ornaments. No documentary proof, such as purchase receipts or prior photographs, was produced to establish ownership of the alleged stolen property. These discrepancies assume significance, as the alleged recovery of stolen property forms a major link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 15. The evidence relating to recovery further suffers from serious infirmities. PW6 and PW7, who were examined as mediators to the alleged recovery, did not fully support the prosecution case. PW6 admitted in cross-examination that he was called to the police station and that the alleged gold and silver articles were already in the custody of the police when the panchanama was prepared. PW6 and PW7, who were examined as mediators to the alleged recovery, did not fully support the prosecution case. PW6 admitted in cross-examination that he was called to the police station and that the alleged gold and silver articles were already in the custody of the police when the panchanama was prepared. It is noted that he was not able to state from whose possession the articles were recovered or whether the recovery was made pursuant to any voluntary confession. Similarly, PW7 failed to state regarding the exact place, manner and timing of the alleged recovery and did not categorically depose that the seized property was recovered from Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5. More importantly, the seized gold ornaments were not shown to PWs.6 and 7, and said articles were not produced before the Court, for which, the trial Court observed that the said articles were already given to the complainant for interim custody, and same were sold away by the PW.1. However, there is no such document marked before the trial Court to show that alleged articles with description were given to PW.1 as interim custody. Their evidence, thus, does not inspire confidence and casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the recovery proceedings. 16. Significantly, neither PW6 nor PW7 identified the recovered articles as belonging to PW1 or other victims, nor did they depose about any distinguishing features of the seized ornaments. The prosecution also failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized property from the time of alleged recovery till its production before the Court. The inconsistencies in the evidence of the mediators and the investigating officers regarding sealing, storage and production of the seized articles materially affect the credibility of the recovery. 17. With regard to the Test Identification Parade, it is imperative to note that though PW8, the Magistrate, deposed about conducting the parade, the surrounding circumstances create doubt about its evidentiary value. There is considerable delay in conducting the parade and the prosecution failed to place convincing material to dispel the defence contention that the accused were shown to the witnesses prior to the parade. In cases resting substantially on identification, the prosecution is required to prove the fairness of the identification process beyond doubt. In the present case, the identification evidence lacks such assurance and cannot be treated as safe corroboration. 18. In cases resting substantially on identification, the prosecution is required to prove the fairness of the identification process beyond doubt. In the present case, the identification evidence lacks such assurance and cannot be treated as safe corroboration. 18. Thus, a cumulative reading of the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 reveals material contradictions, unreliable recovery evidence and doubtful identification. It is well-settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In view thereof, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment 30.04.2024 passed in S.C.No.128 of 2023 by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities Against the Women cum I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak. The jail authorities are directed to release the accused forthwith. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.