The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on unreliable identification evidence or insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

( 1 ) SHAKTI Singh s/o Bhagwana, Ashok Kumar s/o Bhagwana,both residents of A2/50-51, Sultan Puri, Delhi and Zile Singh s/o Sardare residentof A2/273 Sultanpuri, Delhi stand convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge ofdelhi in Session s Case No. 38/90 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,188 and 302 read with Sections 149,201 read with Sections 149,395 read withsection 149 and 395 read with Section 149. Each of them is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147, rigorous imprisonment fortwo years under Section 148, rigorous imprisonment for three months undersection 188, rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 read withsection 149, rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 2 yearsunder Section 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE appellants were challaned in FIR No. 254/84 on the allegations that on 2/11/1984 at about 6. 30 A. M. they and other 37-47 persons had formedan unlawful assembly with the common object of looting and murdering and at thattime they were armed with deadly weapons and in the prosecution of the saidcommon object they committed murders of Inder Singh, Hardeep Singh, Dalipsngh, Prabhu Singh, Paitu Singh, Shanti Kaur, Sangat Singh and Badam Singh andthey further destroyed the evidence of murder by burning the dead bodies of thosepersons and that they had looted the houses of those persons and had also set onfire the houses of those persons.

( 3 ) THE charge was framed against the appellants on 30/05/1987 foroffences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 188, 201 read with Section 149,395read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 for which the appellants hadpleaded not guilty of the charge. Their evidence is of total denial and falseimplication. According to them as a matter of fact they were the neighbours of thevictims and they had gone to save them and that they have been falsely implicatedat the instance of the police.

( 4 ) IN order to prove its case against the present appellants, prosecution hasexamined in all 15 witnesses. Out of those 15 witnesses P. W. 2 Narangi Kaur, P. W. 3bindo Kaur, P. W. 5 Vaijanti Kaur, P. W. 6 Durjan Kaur, P. W. 7 Basanti Kaur, P. W. 8kaur Bai, P. W. 9 Jit Kaur, P. W. 10 Chal Kaur, P. W. 12 Rajni Kaur are examined asdirect eye witnesses to the incident in question. Accused had examined twowitnesses in support of their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge foundfavour with the evidence of the said eye witnesses and he preferred the evidenceof those eye witnesses to that of defence witnesses examined by the appellantsnamely, D. W. 1 Vidya and D. W. 2 Malkeet Kaur. He, therefore, held the appellantsguilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted and sentencedthem as stated earlier.

( 5 ) BEING felt aggrieved by the said decision the appellants have come in appealbefore us. It is submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants thatthe prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the persons who are stated to havebeen murdered and killed were in fact murdered and killed and as a matter of factone of those persons namely, Badam Singh was alive on the date of the trial as wellas on the date of the conviction. Therefore, that facts shows that the claim of theprosecution could not be accepted beyond doubt. It is further contended that thefirst version given by the prosecution witnesses was that the persons who hadcommitted the rioting, looting and killing were not from their vicinity and that theywere unknown persons and therefore, their belated version before the Court oughtnot to have been accepted. It is also further contended that there is no properidentification of the present three appellants and as there was no proper identification parade of the present appellants the Trial Court ought not to have accepted theevidence against t