The evidence of identification must be reliable and the identification parade must be conducted in a fair and proper manner.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected Criminal Appeals arising out of the same case. Maiku is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1960, while Holi and Sheo Bechan are the appellants in criminal Appeal No. 507 of 1960. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 395. P. Code and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment each. Two other accused persons Buddha and Chhedu were also prosecuted in this case, but they were acquitted by the trial court. The appellants are represented by two different counsel.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that a dacoity was committed at the house of Munnu singh, (P. W. 2), a resident of village Rasulpur, police station Khairabad, district Sitapur, on the night between the 3rd and 4th of August, 1959. This dacoity was committed by about 20 to 25 dacoits, who possessed various kinds of arms including fire-arms. In the course of this dacoity munnu Singh and several of his relations were injured. Munnu Singh himself received gunshot injuries, though not of a serious character. His servant Ajodhya, his daughter-in-law Shrimati mohini, his son-in-law Inderpal Singh and his son Vishnu Prakash were the other injured persons, who received injuries of a simple character by a blunt weapon. It is claimed that at the time of the dacotiy two laaterns were burning one inside and the other outside the house of Munni Singh and there were torches with the witnesses as well as with the dacoits. It is further claimed that as it was the month of August lightning was flashing repeatedly at the time of the incident. It was in this light that the witnesses succeeded in seeing the features of the dacoits.

( 3 ) NEXT morning a report of this incident was lodged by Munnu Singh at police station Khairabad which was four miles away at 9. 30 A- M. No names were given and only a meaningless and nauseating description of the dacoits was given in the report which clearly indicates that the report was not the one indicated by Munnu Singh but it was edited by the police scribe who put in the usual formula about the description of the dacoits which is put in in such reports. We do not know how the police traced out this crime. All that we know is that Holi and Sheo Bechan appellants were arrested on the 17th August, 1959 and Maiku was arrested on the 20th of august, 1959. I may mention that the time of arrest is challenged by the defence and I will deal with this point later on. No stolen property was recovered from any of the arrested persons and identification proceedings were held on the 9th of September, 1959. In this parade all the three appellants were identified by more than two witnesses and the case against them rests on this evidence of identification alone. The trial court accepted this evidence of identification and convicted the three appellants.

( 4 ) THE conclusions reached by the trial court are assailable both an the ground of prudence and caution and also on the ground of not following the directions given by the High Court. So far as the second ground is concerned, the conduct of the trial court might be excusable because there is a Bench decision of our High Court which supports the view taken by the trial court. If I had disagreed with the conclusions of the trial court on this ground alone, I would not have preferred my opinion, but would have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for forming a bigger Bench. But on the first ground the trial court acted in an extremely credulous manner and it is difficult to escape from the conclusion that the trial court has not yet acquired any judicial maturity. It has shown its immaturity by the way it assessed the evidence in this case. As on this ground alone the conviction of the appellants cannot be upheld it is not necessary for me to delay the disposal of this case by referring the matter to the Chief Justice for forming a bigger Bench, specially when one of the appellants is in Jail.

( 5 ) IN a case of