ABDULLAH JABIR, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mr. 1. H. Chowdhury, Assistant Sessions Judge of Noakhali convicting the accused appellant Mosharraf Hossain under section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
The prosecution case is that on the night following 29 Kartik 1370 B. S. Corresponding to 17-I1-1963 there was a dacoity in the house of the complainant P. W.
2. Karunamay Nath and his father P. W. 13 Jadab Chandra Nath in village Gopinathpur within police station Lakhsmipur in the district of Noakhali. There were two dwelling huts in the north Bhiti-one on the eastern side and the other on the western side. P. W. 13 Jadab was sleeping in the eastern most room of the eastern but and his son P. W. 2 Karunamay Nath and his another son's wife P. W. 12 Shefali were sleeping in the adjacent western room and his wife P. W. 3 Lakshmi Priya and Khuki Rani were sleeping in the extreme western room of the said hut. At about 1 o'clock in the night some dacoits entered the room of Jadab by opening the catch of the door and they struck Jadab with laths on the head causing injury. They tied him and dragged him to the room of his son P. W. 2 Karunamay and laid him on the ground and demanded money at the point of dagger, where--upon P. W. 3 Lakhsmi Priya showed them the place where the money was kept. They took out some money therefrom. She also pointed out to them a suitcase in the ceiling where ornaments were kept and the dacoits climbed on the ceiling and brought down three suit-cases and after breaking open the same took away gold ornaments therefrom. Thereafter the dacoits entered the western but where P. W.
6. Brojendra Kumar Nath and his wife P. W. 4 Nanibala were sleeping and they tied Brojendra, wrapped him up with kantha and spreading kerosene oil on it, set fire to it and began to demand money. Brojen'sth wife Nanibala then handed over gold necklace and a pair of gold kanbala to dacoits who took them. After committing the dacoity, the dacoits assembled in the courtvard and counted their number from 1 to 13 and then they retreated from the house. After the dacoits left, neighbours including P. W.
7. Monomohan Nath, P. W. 8 Jagabandhu Nath and P. W. 9 Sitanath came, saw the condition of the house and heard about the occurrence. On the following morning P. W. 2 went to thana and lodged first information report. Police took up investigation of the case, visited the locality, seized alamats, arrested appellant Mosharraf Hossain and one Nurul Huq and placed them for identification in Test Identification Parades and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused Nurul Huq and the appellant Mosharraf Hossain. There was a preliminary enquiry by a competent Magistrate who committed them to the Court of Sessions charging them under section 395 read with section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code and they were tried accordingly. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and their case was that they had been implicated in the case falsely. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Nurul Huq but convicted the appellant under section 395, P. P. C. And sentenced him to suffer R. I. For 5 years.
Hence this appeal.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact of dacoity that was committed in the house of P. Ws. 2 and 13 at about I o'clock on the night following 29th Kartik 1370 B. S. Corresponding to 17-11.1963. The inmates of the house, namely, P. W. 2 Karunamay Nath, P. W. 3 Lakshmipriya, P. W. 4 Nanibala, P. W. 6 Brojendra Kumar Nath and P. W. 13 Jadab Chandra Nath deposed regarding the dacoity. They stated that 8 to 10 dacoits committed dacoity in the two huts and after assaulting P. W. 13.Jadab and P. W. 6 Brojendra and other; took away cash and ornaments from the two huts. Their evidences regarding dacoity receive corroboration from the evidences of P. W. 7 Monomohan Nath P. W. 8 Jagabandhu Nath and P. W. 9 Sitanath who visited the house at night, saw the depredations and heard from the inmates of the house that the dacoits had looted away ornaments and money from their house. P. W. 1 4 Dr. Emdadullah, Medical Officer of Bijoynagar Charitable Dis--pensary examined P. Ws. 6 and 13 and found injuries on their person. P. W. 15 A. S. I. Abdul Karim visited the locality on. 17-11-1963 and seized alamats of dacoity. Hence the prosecution case that there was a dacoity in the house of P. Ws 2 and 13 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The question now arises whether the accused appellant Mosharraf Hossain was among the dacoits who committed the aforesaid dacoity. Prosecution case rests only upon the identification of the appellant in the T. I. Parade. Mr. Abdus Salam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that since the learned trial Curt did not rely upon the evidences of the witnesses who had identified the acquitted accused Nurul Huq, no rel"ance can be placed upon the evidences of the same witnesses with regard to the identifica--petition of appellant Mosharraf Hossain also. The prosecution case against accused Nurul Huq was alqo based upon identification in a Test Identification Parade which was held on 26-12-63. He was identified in the said Test Identification Parade by P. Ws. 2. 3, 4, 6 and 13. The learned Assistant Sessions fudge found that Nurul Huq was known to those witnesses from before but in the first information report lodged by P. W. 2 his name was not mentioned and no explanation was given by the prosecution for the omission. He, therefore, rightly concluded that the prosecution case regarding the recognition of Nurul Huq was an afterthought and the evidences of the witnesses relating to the identification of the said accused could not be believed. The appellant was placed on 10-2-1964 in a T. I. Parade which was held by P. W. 5 Mr. A. M. Ershad A.I Chowdhury, Magistrate, Ist Class and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 13 identified him. There was another T. I. Parade on 15-4-64 which was conducted by P. W. 11 Mr. S. Hadi Hossain, a Deputy Magistrate and in the said T. I. Parade P. W. 6 Brojendra identified the appellant.
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the evidences of P. Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 13 on the question of recognition of the appellant and con--victed him, though he could not accept their evidences regarding recognition of Nurul Huq. When the Caurt feels constrained to place reliance upon the evidence of a witness on a point, it is A not safe to rely upon his evidence on any other point unless his evidence on that point is corroborated by independent evidence or circumstance.
In this case, there is not other independent evidence forthcoming regarding the complicity of the accused appellant in the dacoity, and hence the evidences of P. Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 13 on the question of recognition of appellant Mosharraf Hossain cannot be relied upon.
It was next contended by the learned Advocate that the story of identification of the appellant in the T. I. Parade cannot be given any weight in view of the fact that the witnesses while identifying the appellant did not make any statement as to when and under what circumstances they saw the appellant. P. W. 5 and P. W. 11 who conducted the two Test Identification Parades held on 10-2-64 and 15-4-64 respectively stated that the identifying witnesses did not state anything else to them.
The mere fact that a witness identifies a suspect in a T. I. Parade, unless such identification relates to recognition of the suspect atthe time of commission of an offence, is of no value at all and no inference of guilt can be founded upon such identification. Hence even if the appellant had been identified by P. Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 13 in the T. I. Parades, that does not warrant the presumption of his complicity in the dacoity.
Lastly, it may be stated that the long interval that elapsed between the dacoity and the dates on which the T. I. Parades were held, reduces the value of the identification. As already stated, the occurrence took place on 17-11-63 and the first T. I. Parade relating to appellant was held on 10-2- 64 when P. Ws. 2, 3 and 13 identified the appellant. More than two months thereafter, on 15-4-1964, the second T. I. Parade was held in which P. W. 6 and one Sunil had identified the appellant. The value and weight to be attached to the identification of a suspect depend on the degree of proximity of the date of identification in a T. I. Parade C to the date of occurrence. The longer the delay the greater is the chance of error creeping in. Consequently no importance can be placed on the identification made in this case after lapse of considerable time.
SIDDIKY, C. J.-I agree.