Identification evidence alone is not sufficient to convict an accused person, especially when there is a long delay in holding the test identification parade and no corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri convicting him u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and passing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. Facts. In the night between 29th and 30th of December, 198 a dacoity took place in the house of the informant (P.W. 1). In courses of the dacoity bombs were exploded and several inmates of the haul were threatened with assault. The villagers offered resistence, but not before the dacoits decamped with cash of about Rs. 15, 000/-and several Tolas of gold ornaments kept inside the Thakurghar of the house. As a result of explosion of bombs one of the inmates of the house (P.W. 5) received several injuries. It is also alleged that on account of explosion of bombs to detract the pursuing villagers, one of the dacoits sustained severe injuries and died. The Appellant was arrested at Khurda Hospital on 24.1.1982 while he was under treatment for an injury on the left big toe. Two other accused persons were also subsequently arrested and all of them were put to trial after submission of charge sheet.

3. The Appellant pleaded innocence. With regard to the injury on his left big toe he explained that while cutting wood, the axe accidentally hit that part of the body.

4. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case that a dacoity had been committed and cash and gold ornaments had been stolen from the house of the informant (P.W. 1). He further believed that the Appellant was one of the dacoits. He did not accept the prosecution case involving the other two accused persons, Therefore, while convicting the Appellant, he acquitted the other two.

5. I have been taken through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, particularly, those of the inmates of the house, P.Ws.1 to 5 and a neighbour (P.W. 6). On consideration of their evidence it is apparent that a dacoity had taken place in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and cash and gold ornaments had been stolen.

6. Miss Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that conviction has been based solely on the evidence of identification without any other corroborating evidence. The test identification parade having taken place more than four months after the occurrence, no reliance, can be placed on such evidence and consequently the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted. In support of her, contention, she has placed reliance on Wakil Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Sidha Dehury and Others Vs. State of Orissa, .

7. It is in deed correct that except the evidence of identification there is no other evidence to corroborate the fact that the Appellant had participated in the dacoity. No incriminating article, much less any Stolen article, had been recovered from his possession. The Medical Officer (P.W. 7), who had examined the Appellant on 30.12.1981, reported in the injury report (Ext. 7) that the injury on the left big toe could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as an axe. Obviously he did not notice that the injuries could have been caused by explosion of bomb being hit by splinters. Thus, save and except Identification evidence, there are no incriminating materials on record showing implication of the Appellant in the dacoity.

8. Now turning to the evidence of identification the informant (P.W. 1) stated truthfully that he was not sure that the accused persons in the dock had committed dacoity in his house. He could not identify any of the culprits at the time of commission of dacoity. P.W. 2 is the younger brother of P.W. 1. He did not participate in the test identification parade, but identified the Appellant for the first time In the Court as one of the culprits whom he has seen at the time of commission of the dacoity, So the question for consideration is whether the evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to indentification of the Appellant for the first time in Court can be believed. It is to b