- (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 not be arranged immediately after the arrest of the accused and without loss of time. Unless there is good reason for the delay, the value regarding the evidence of identification gets adversely affected. This dilution of the evidentiary value of identification by witnesses who claim to have seen the accused at night almost 1 1/2 months back but who did not in their statements before the police or in the first information report reveal any special features for identification, is a matter which weighs against the prosecution. It must be remembered that the accused persons are required to be produced before the court latest within 15 days of their arrest and, therefore, it would be reasonable to infer that they were so produced. There is nothing on the record to show that the prosecution had taken care to ensure that their identity was not revealed when they were taken to court and produced as required by law. In these circumstances, when the prosecution witnesses had admitted in their oral statements that they had not noticed any special identifying features, it becomes unsafe to place implicit reliance on the evidence regarding identification emanating from the proceedings at the test identification parade. In these circumstances since there is no other corroborative evidence, we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the identification made at the test identification parade. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
(3.)In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants will be released forthwith unless required in any other case.