ORDER 1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict who was charged and put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act, 1985”) in th Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No.150/2004. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was driving a white coloured Maruti Suzuki car bearing No.DL-6C-3737 and in the said car, contraband in the form of poppy straw weighing 233 grams was clandestinely stored in seven gunny bags. 3. The officials had a specific information that the vehicle was to pass by and, accordingly, they kept a close vigil. 4. On 20.02.2004, the vehicle was intercepted. 5. At the relevant point of time, as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was on the wheels and he managed somehow to make good his escape. It is the case of the prosecution that the police officials did try to chase him, however, they were unable to catch hold of the appellant. 6. After the contraband was recovered from the vehicle, the necessary mandatory procedures were undertaken. After a period of six months from the date of seizure of the contraband, the appellant came to be arrested. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant for the alleged offence. 7. The Trial Court examined in all seven witnesses. 8. At the end of the trial, the appellant was held guilty of the alleged offence and was sentenced to undergo ten (10) years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 9. The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court went in appeal before the High Court. 10. The Criminal Appeal No.1146/2006 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022. 11. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before us with the present appeal. 12. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- convict and Ms. Sabarni Som, the learned counsel appearing for the State. 13. The Criminal Appeal No.1146/2006 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022. 11. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before us with the present appeal. 12. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- convict and Ms. Sabarni Som, the learned counsel appearing for the State. 13. We take notice of the fact that the entire conviction of the appellant is based on the oral testimony of PW-6. 14. PW-6 namely, Som Nath, at the relevant point of time was serving as an ASI DETC staff, Sirsa. He deposed before the Trial Court that on the date of seizure and recovery of contraband, he was one of the members of the raiding staff. 15. According to PW-6, he saw the person on wheels getting out of the car and running away. 16. It is also his case that he alongwith other officials ran behind him to catch hold of him but somehow that person managed to escape. 17. After a period of about six (06) months from 20.02.2004, i.e., the date of the seizure, the present appellant was arrested in connection with the alleged crime. 18. It is for the first time after a period of almost one year and six months from the date of seizure that PW-6 identified the appellant before the Trial Court to be that person who was driving the vehicle and who could manage to run away. 19. Based on this evidence of identification by PW-6, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty. 20. The High Court also accepted the oral testimony of PW-6 and thought fit to affirm the judgment and order of conviction. 21. We looked into the Examination-in-Chief of the PW-6 as well as his cross-examination. 22. The oral testimony of PW-6 reads thus: “Examination in Chief: On 22.2.2004, I was posted as ASI/Incharge, Police Post, Goriwala. On that day, I along with Ramesh Kumar, EHC and other police officials was present at Hanuman Mandir, Kaluwana Road in a govt. vehicle HR-24-3033 in connection with Nakabandi. In the meantime, a Maruti Car of white colour came from the side of village kaluana. The driver of the Maruti car, on seeing the police stopped the car and fled away living the Maruti car there. vehicle HR-24-3033 in connection with Nakabandi. In the meantime, a Maruti Car of white colour came from the side of village kaluana. The driver of the Maruti car, on seeing the police stopped the car and fled away living the Maruti car there. The accused Gurtej Singh, today present in the court is the same person who had fled away from the spot on 22.2.2004. the registration no. of Maruti car was DL-6C/3737. When I opened the rear window of the car, I found seven gunny bags lying inside the car. I opened and checked the said seven gunny bags which were found containing poppy straw out of which two samples of 100 grams each were separated from each of the gunny bag and residue on weighment alongwith weight of the gunny bag was found 35 kgs. In each of gunny bags. The samples and residue were reduced into separate parcels and sealed with my seal bearing impression and after use the seal was handed over to EHC Ramesh Kumar. The sample parcels and residue parcels were taken into custody vide recovery memo Ex.PF. I prepared ruqa Ex.PG to the police station, Sadar Dabwali on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded by Bhenwar Singh, ASI. I also prepared rough site plan Ex.PH of the place of recovery at the spot with correct marginal notes. I also taken into custody car bearing registration no. DL-6C/3737 vide same recovery memo Ex. PF. Thereafter, I produced the case property, witnesses and report u/s 57 of NDPC Act Ex. PA before Rajbir Singh, SI/SHO of Police Station Sadar, Dabwali who verified the facts of the case from witnesses and affixed his seal (RS) on the each parcel o f case property. On direction of Rajbir Singh, SI/SHO, I deposited the case property with the MHC of Police Station. On 18.04.2004, registration certificate of car bearing registration no. DL-6C/3737 Ex. P15, affidavit of Baljinder Singh Ex. PD were produced by Baljinder Singh before me and the same were taken into custody vide recovery memo Ex.PC. On completion of investigation and other legal formalities ASI Jaipal prepared the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. I have seen the Maruti car bearing registration no. DL-6C/3737, standing outside the court room. It is the same car, which I had taken into police custody vide recovery memo Ex.PF. Cross-examination by Shri J. S. Maan, Advocate for accused. On completion of investigation and other legal formalities ASI Jaipal prepared the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. I have seen the Maruti car bearing registration no. DL-6C/3737, standing outside the court room. It is the same car, which I had taken into police custody vide recovery memo Ex.PF. Cross-examination by Shri J. S. Maan, Advocate for accused. We started from the police post, Goriwala at 10.00 a.m. after making an entry in the DDR regarding general patrolling and it was not regarding any specific village. We had reached at the place of recovery at about 12.30 p.m. After starting from the police post, firstly we went to village Bijjuwali and then to village Bodikan and then to the place of recovery. We had patrolled for about one hour in village Bijjuwali and for one hour in village Bodikan. We did not check any person. We had not asked any person to join the police party before reaching the place of recovery. The place of recovery is a general road leading from village Bijjuwali to village Kaluana. After out Nakabandi till the time of recovery, many persons passed by the road, but we did not ask any person to join the police party. We had stopped for half an hour when the car was noticed. During this period, we had three scooterists, but nothing was recogered. We had seen the car from a distance of 20-25 karams. We had not signalled the car to stop. The driver of the car stopped the car at a distance of 25 karanms from the police party and driver of the car fled towards right side of the car. There was no crop sown in the nearby fields. We all of us chased the accused upto the distance of 2-3 acres of land. The driver ran due to the long distance from us. We first brought the car to the place of Nakabandi and then started the search proceedings. The samples and residue were weighed with the spring actuated balances. One of the spring actuated balance was of capacity of 1 kg. and second was of 50 kgs. The balance was hanged in a lathi which was lifted by HC Ramesh Kumar and Constable Rohtash. We spend about four hours in this proceedings at the spot. We had done the writing work while sitting on the platform of Hanuman Mandir. One of the spring actuated balance was of capacity of 1 kg. and second was of 50 kgs. The balance was hanged in a lathi which was lifted by HC Ramesh Kumar and Constable Rohtash. We spend about four hours in this proceedings at the spot. We had done the writing work while sitting on the platform of Hanuman Mandir. We started for the police station at about 5.00 p.m. I had affixed five seals on each sample parcel and three seals on each residue parcel. We had reached the police station at 9.30 p.m. The police station Sadar, Dabwali is at a distance of 30 kms from place of recovery. The verification was done at 7.30 pm at Goriwala crossing. It is incorrect to suggest that nothing was recovered from the accused in the manner stated above. No person ever tried to get the accused identified from me earlier today. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused was falsely involved in the present case at the instance of Harnam Singh, Surpanch of village Kingre who had inimical relation with the accused due to election. It is also incorrect to suggest that I have wrongly identified the accused today in the Court. RO & AC. (R.S. Bagri), ASJ/Sirsa. 3.10.2005.” 23. The law is well settled. The conviction of an accused can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness. The offence may be of any type. If the evidence of a solitary witness is wholly reliable, then there is no problem in accepting the evidence as it is. If it is wholly unreliable, then the court has to discard it in toto. But in the event if it is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then the court must insist on corroboration in material particulars. 24. In so far the present case is concerned, there is no other cogent evidence on record inspiring confidence to indicate with certainty that it was the appellant and none else who was driving the vehicle and was in conscious possession of the contraband. 25. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the appellant could not have been held guilty and convicted solely on the evidence of the solitary witness PW-6. The identity of the present appellant is in doubt. 26. 25. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the appellant could not have been held guilty and convicted solely on the evidence of the solitary witness PW-6. The identity of the present appellant is in doubt. 26. We are of the view that the identification of the appellant for the first time before the Trial Court after a period of 1½ years does not inspire confidence. In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no Test Identification Parade (“TIP”), the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness (See: Kunjumon v. State of Kerala (2012) 13 SCC 750 ). 27. In Jayan v. State of Kerala reported in (2021) 20 SCC 38 , this Court disbelieved the dock identification of the accused therein by a witness and while doing so, this Court discussed the aspect of TIP in the following words: “It is well settled that TI parade is a part of investigation and it is not a substantive evidence. The question of holding TI parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, TI parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy….” 28. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 29. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is hereby set-aside. 30. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 31. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.