As per case facts, the appellant and seven others were charged with dacoity and murder on May 28, 1994, where Rajendra Thakur was killed. Four individuals were acquitted by the ... trial court, and three more by the High Court, leaving the appellant as the sole convict under Section 396 IPC. The prosecution heavily relied on the identification of the appellant by four eyewitnesses in a test identification parade held seven weeks after the incident. Discrepancies arose regarding the number of assailants, the use of masks by dacoits, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies about who held a gun or fired the shot. The High Court, unlike the trial court, did not believe the identification of other acquitted accused due to the time gap. The question arose whether the identification of the appellant by the witnesses, especially PW1 and PW4, was credible given that dacoits were masked, there was limited light, and witnesses' accounts were inconsistent or improbable. Finally, the Supreme Court found significant doubts regarding the identification evidence, particularly noting that dacoits had covered their faces, making identification difficult. The court also highlighted the perfunctory investigation and various inconsistencies in witness statements, leading it to set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant, thereby allowing the appeal.