( 1 ). Special leave granted.

( 2 ). We have heard counsel on both sides. The fate of the appellants depends on the probative value to be given to the evidence of PWs 1,4, 6 and 8 in regard to the identification of the appellants. It may be mentioned that the occurrence in question had taken place at midnight almost 1 months prior to their identification. One of the appellants, Rabin Kandy was arrested on 22/11/1982, while the other two Rabindra Kumar Sahu and Satrughana were arrested on 12/11/1982. The identification parade was held on 10/12/1982, i. e. more than 15 days after the arrest of Rabin Kandy and almost a month after the arrest of the other two accused. The prosecution has not advanced any reason for not holding the identification parade promptly. In other words the prosecution has not placed on record the reason why it was not possible for it to hold the identification parade with promptitude, i. e. soon after arrest. Where the fate of the accused persons hangs solely on the identification by the witnesses who claim to have seen them almost 1 1/2 months prior to the date of identification, it is the duty of the prosecution to state why the identification parade could no