S. J. Hyder, J. - (1.)ARE two connected appeals which ARE directed against the judgment of the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor dated 16-4-1975. By means of the said judgment and order, the two appellants have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 396 I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The incident giving rise to these appeals took place on 16-7-1974 at about 11 r. M. in village Umarpur, police station Kiratpur, District Bijnor. The first information report of the incident was lodged by Mool Chand (P. W. 1) at the said police station on 17-7-1974 at 3-10 A. M. In village Umarpur, one Rirhka Singh has a house which faces eastwards. In front of the said house, there is a lane towards the east. Further east to the lane, is an open piece of land. Just adjacent to the houses of Rirhka Singh was his Gher. The said Gher is situated to the east of the lane which passes in front of the house of Rirhka Singh and is just north of the open land in front of the open land in front of this house. At the extreme and of the open land and towards its south is a tube well. These facts ARE evident from the site plan prepAREd by the Investigating Officer Sri H. C. Saxena and had not been challenged before this court. At the time of the occurrence, Rirhka Singe along with Rampal (P. W. 3) and Om Prakash were sleeping in the Gher. At the house of Rirhka Singh, his son Mool Chand complainant (P. W. 1) along with the ladies of the house were sleeping. The inmates of the house including Mool Chand were awakened on hearing the footsteps and the noise created by the person jumping over the tinshed in front of the rooms situated in the courtyard of the house. Mool Chand being awakened from his sleep found that about 10 or 12 miscreants were standing over the roof of the kitchen inside the house. The said kitchen is in the north western corner of the house. One of the miscreants who was standing over the roof of the kitchen had a gun in his hand. The other miscreant was carrying a torch light. The other miscreants who had jumped inside the house were also carrying torches and different weapons. They started ransacking the house of Rirhka Singh whereupon an alarm was raised by the inmates. On hearing the said alarm, Om Prakash and Rirhka Singh accompanied by Rampal and others advanced southwards towards the house of Rirhka Singh. They had hardly proceeded a few steps from the Gher of Rirhka Single when two shots were firsd at them. As a result of the said shots, Rirhka Singh and Om Prakash were injured. The other persons who accompanied them took the injured and retreated towards the Gher of Rirhka Singh and kept them under a thatch. There was another thatch southwards which was leaning on the southern wall of the Gher of Rirhka Singh. Rampal set fire to the said thatch. A bulb was also burning over the roof of the Tube well and was emitting sufficient light. A lantern was burning inside the house of Rirhka Singh and with the help of the lights from different sources, the prosecution witnesses identified the miscreants who were not known to them from before. This in short is the prosecution case. The investigation of the case was taken up by H. C. Saxena (P. W. 10). He visited the spot and prepAREd a site plan. He was transferred on July 21, 1974. The case was then investigated by Karan Singh (P. W. 11). Uma Dutt appellant was arrested near the level crossing on the Bijnor-Nagma road on September 16, 1974 at 7 A. M. by Somdutt Tyagi (P. W. 19). He was put up for identification on 29-11-1974. The identification was conducted by Sri Virendra Singh, Magistrate (P. W. 2). Mool Chand (P. W. 1) and Rampal (P, W. 3) correctly identified Uma Dett. At the same time, one Mushtaq was also arrested by Somdutt Tyagi. He was also put up for identification at the test identification parade on Nevember 29, 1974. He was correctly identified by Mool Chand alone. Israr appellant in the connected appeal was arrested on 16th of January, 1975 at 5 P. M. by S. K. Sote, S. I. (P. W. 17). He was sent to jail on January 17, 1975. He was put up for test identification before the same Magistrate, namely, Virendra Singh (P. W. 2). Mool Chand (P. W. 1) and Rampal (P.W. 3) correctly identified this appellant. One Mohsmuddin was also arrested in connection with this dacoity and was put up for identification. He was correctly identified by Mool Chand alone. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against four persons, namely, Uma Dutt appellant in Criminal Appeal No 878 of 1975 and Israr appellant in the connected criminal appeal and the other two persons Mushtaq and Mohsinuddin. The trial court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of Mushtaq and Mohsinuddin and sentenced the two appellants as stated above. They have now preferred this appeal. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the conviction of the two appellants is based solely on the test identification as two witnesses, namely, Mool Chand and Rampal had correctly put their hands at the said test identification on the two appellants. In this connection, it may be stated that of all the prosecution witnesses, only Mool Chand has the singular distinction of identifying all the four accused correctly without making any mistake. The question which falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the conviction of the appellants Uma Dutt and Israr can be safely based on the testimony of these two witnesses alone. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out that evidence of identification from its very nature is weak evidence. It is always incumbent on the court to serutinise the surrounding circumstances before accepting such evidence. It has been repeatedly held by the courts that the substantive evidence of identification is that given by the witnesses in the court. Test identification parades belong to the investigation stage. They ARE generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify the persons concerned in the offence who were not previously known to them. Their main purpose is to serve as corroborative evidence of the identification made by the witnesses before the court it self. Identification at test parade is, therefore, not substantive evidence by itself. Facts which establishes the identity of an accused persons ARE relevant under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, before such evidence is accepted, the court should be satisfied as to how and under what circumstances the witnesses came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity (See Budhsen v. State of U. P. (A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1321). Further, it is to be borne in mind that before relying on identification evident the court should be satisfied the witness had a fair, if not a good opportunity, to see the accused. This' would include within its ambit two facts. Firstly, it should be established that there was sufficient light to enable a witness to see the accused who was not known to him from before. Secondly, that the accused and the witness were in such close proximity with each other that it was possible for the witness to observe him cAREfully. It should also be established that the witness has reliable powers of observation and that the witness was not given an opportunity to see the accused before identification. The things or objects seen by a witness tend to fade out of his memory with the passage of time. If sufficient time had elapsed when a person or object was seen by the witness and when he or it is next shown to him, there ARE slender chances of a witness making a correct identification. The incident giving rise to these appeals occurred between the night of 16th and 17th of July, 1974. Mool Chand according to his own admission, was threatened by the Dacoits and he did not leave his Charpal and remained glued to it during the course of the entire incident. The said Charpai was inside the house of his father Rirhka Singh. The electric bulb on the tube-well and "the light created by the burning of the thatch was therefore not helpful for Mool Chand. He could not make any observation or see things as they happened with the help of the said lights. He had necessarily to depend for purposes of observation on the light given out by a lantern which was said to be burning at the time inside the house. Mool Chand has not stated in his evidence what part was played by the two appellants, namely, Uma Dutt and Israr, during the course of the said incident. He has not even stated whether these two appellants were amongst the miscreants who were standing on the roof of the kitchen or they were taking goods from inside the house. This witness must have been in fear of his own safety and could not have possibly watched the movements of the miscreants. These ARE all circumstances which throw an unfavourable light on the identification testimony furnished by this witness. Uma Dutt appellant along with one Mushtaq was arrested at Bijnor by Somdutt Tyagi S. I. (P. W. 19). This S. I. in his testimony has admitted that Mool Chand and Mushtaq were not wanted in connection with any dacoity which may have been committed within his police circle. It that be so, there was no occasion for Somdutt Tyagi to keep these two persons, namely, lima Dutt appellant and the other co-accused Mushtaq, duly screened during the entire period until he was sent to jail. It is significant that Somdutt Tyagi has not stated in his evidence that he had any information that Uma Dutt and Mushtaq were involved in the dacoity which took place at Umarpur at the hruse of Rirhka Singh, there is no evidence on the record from which it may be concluded at what time Uma Dutt was sent to jail. The prosecution evidence is silent on this part of the case. Neither Harish Chandra Saxena (P. W. 10) nor Karan Singh S. I. (P. W. 11) who submitted the chargesheet against Uma Dutt have stated anything that they had conveyed the information of the dacoity at village Umarpur to P. S. Kotwali, Bijnor and the arrest of Uma Dutt and Mushtaq was made by Somdutt Tyagi on the basis of such information. From all these facts, the possibility that Umadutt and Mushtaq wARE shown to the witnesses before being sent to jail cannot be ruled out. In so far as Israr appellant in the connected appeal is concerned, his arrest was made by S. K. Sote (P. W. 17) on 16th January, 1975 at 5 P. M. S. K. Sote has admitted in his evidence that the said arrest was made as he had received information that Israr was possessed of unlicensed arm. He clearly deposed that while making the arrest he was not awARE of the fact that Israr was involved in the dacoity at Umarpur. Ext Ka-7 no doubt shows that Israr confessed to the police after his arrest that he had taken part in the snid dacoity. He is also said to have been duly screened and sent to Bijnor at 8-22 A. M. on 17th of January, 1975. The time when he was actually lodged in Jail has not been proved by the presecution. The identification parade of this witness was held on 1-3-75 i.e. after eight months of the actual occurrence. Even then Mool Chand (P. W. 1) and Rampal (P. W. 3) ARE alleged to have identified him at the test identification parade. It has already been stated that the identification of the appellants made by Mool Chand is of a dubious nature and is difficult to accept. The possibility of Israr having been shown to the witnesses can not be brushed aside. Even then it is necessary to scrutinise the evidence of the other identifying witness namely Rampal (P. W. 3). As already stated, the house of this witness is immediately west to the house of Rirhka Singh in which the dacoity is said to have taken place. Ordinarily he should have gone to sleep at his own house. He had, however, stated that he went to the Gher of Rirhka Singh situate in the extreme north for this purpose and was sleeping there at the time of the incident. In these circumstances, the presence of Rampal at the time of the incident at the Gher of Rirhka Singh appears to be improbable. He has disclosed two sources of light with the help of which he allegedly identified the two appellants. One of them is a bulb which is alleged to be burning at the time of the incident on the tubewell situate at some distance from the house of Rirhka Singh. The owner of the tubewell has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that the bulb was burning between the night of 16th and 17th of July, 1974 when the incident occurred. Rampal stated that there was a thatch which was kept on the southern wall of the Gher of Rirhka Singh and he set fire to it. He states that he was inside the Gher of Rirhka Singh and was standing in a corner from where he watched the appellant Uma Dutt and Israr and other miscreants who proceeded in the same direction in which the Gher of Rirhka Singh was situate. The Investigating Officer who went to the spot immediately after the lodging of the first information report. Harish Chandra Saxena (P.W. 10), did not take into his possession the bulb which was said to be burning on the tubewell. He did not find any marks of charring and smoke on the southern wall of the Gher of Rirhka Singh. For these reasons, the source of light in which the appellants ARE alleged to have been seen by this witness becomes of doubtful authenticity. Rampal has stated that on hearing the noise coming from the house of Rirhka Singh, he, accompanied by Rirhka Singh and Om Prakash and others, went in that direction. When they had reached a short distance from the Gher, two shots were fired by the miscreants which fatally injured Rirhka Singh and also caused injuries on the person of Om Prakash. Both these persons were, therefore, brought back into the Gher of Rirhka Singh. He has further disclosed that the miscreants while retreating fired further shots from the Guns. In these circumstances, Rampal must have been concerned more about his personal safety. It is difficult to place any reliance on his testimony that he saw the appellants amongst the miscreants. He also does not assign any particular part which may have been played by the two appellants during the course of the incident which may have enabled him to note their features. There is yet another aspect of this case which should not be allowed to go unnoticed. Just infront of the house of Rirhka Singh, to the west after the passage, is open ground and thereafter agricultural fields. In the ordinary course of nature, the miscreants who committed the dacoity should have taken the said route while escaping with the booty. The theory that instead of escaping in that direction, they proceeded north-wards along the passage adjoining the Gher of Rirhka Singh and the Abadi is itself difficult to believe and appears to have been concocted to lend assurance to the evidence of Rampal. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellants in the two connected appeals beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that these appeals succeed and ARE hereby allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dated 18-4-1975 in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 1974 and Sessions Trial No. 94-A of 1975 ARE hereby set aside. The appellants in the two connected appeals ARE acquitted of the charge under Section 396 I. P. C. The appellants ARE on bail. Their bail bonds ARE discharged and they need not surrender.