period of time was unreliable. Consequently, all the accused who faced the trial, except accused No.1 were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. Learned counsel for the accused relying on the decision in Balbir v. Vazir and Ors. (2014 KHC 4438) contended that if an eye witness did not have sufficient opportunity to see the faces of the accused, failure to hold an identification parade is a serious drawback in the prosecution case. It was also contended that the material objects were not recovered from the accused in this case. Relying on Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015 KHC 4351) , it was held that failure to recover gold jewellery was fatal to the prosecution. In the latter case, conviction was based on identity of the accused by witnesses in the test identification parade alone. In that background, the Honourable Supreme Court held that absence of recovery was a ground for acquittal. Evidently, in that case, there was no reliable material to connect the accused in the incident. In the former case, there were materials on record to show that the witnesses could not have seen the face of the accused and hence, not holding of test identification parade assumed significance. However, in the case at hand, as mentioned above, the eye
