JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - All the 7 Appellants have been convicted u/s 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years each. The prosecution case is that on February 23, 1960 at about midnight Madhab Jena (P.W. 2) of village Teghori was awakened from sleep on hearing sounds of stone pelting on the entrance door of his house and found torch lights flashing in front of his house. The dacoits were shouting that unless the door was opened, the inmates would be killed. P.W. 2 kept the door pressed from inside and loudly shouted for help from co-villagers. He did not get any assistant. On seeing the docoits making entry after creaking open the door, P.W. 2 escaped through the back door, and after swimming a pond ran to the premises of the school where the Sub-Inspector of Police was camping. On getting information, the S.I. armed with a revolver and in the company of A.S.I. and 3 Constables, armed with lathis, ran to the spot with the information and one Harendra Kar (P.W. 19). On the spot they found 7 or 8 men standing on the road in front of the house of P.W. 2 ad keeping watch. Those persons pelted stones and shot arrows to the police party and attacked them with lathis and axes. The dacoits, who were inside the house, came out and joined others in attacking the police party. Constables Balaram Senapati (P.W. 43) and Md. Hassam Khan (P.W. 30) caught two of the dacoits. The Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspectotor and Constable Naryan (P.W. 33) made a counter attack on the dacoits. Some villagers caught dacoit Tulsa Naik (Appellant No. 1), The dacoits injured Constables Senapati and Hassamand rescued the two men they had caught. They could not however rescue Tulsa but wounded the Sub-Inspector and Constable Narayan and a number of villagers. The Sub-Inspector fired his revolver several times. Then the gang of about 20 to 25 persons fled away leaving Appellant Tulsa, their bows, arrows, cloths, tangias and torches behind. After the departure of he dacoits, Madhab Jena examined his articles and cash and supplied a list of looted articles in F.I.R.(Ext. 1). This is how the prosecution originated. 2. All the Appellants deny that they were the members of the gang. They were tried with several other persons who were acquitted. 3. Mr. After the departure of he dacoits, Madhab Jena examined his articles and cash and supplied a list of looted articles in F.I.R.(Ext. 1). This is how the prosecution originated. 2. All the Appellants deny that they were the members of the gang. They were tried with several other persons who were acquitted. 3. Mr. Misra has taken considerable pains to advance all the contentions that could be urged in favour of the Appellants. He conceded that the fact that there was an armed dacoity by about 20 to 25 persons in the house of P.W. 2 and his brother Sadhu Jena (P.W. 4) could not be disputed. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly pointed out that this fact was well established by the evidence of p. ws. 1 to 3 to to 17, 19, 23, 30, 33 and 41 to 43 who were eye-witnesses to the fight between the dacoits and the police party. Mr. Misra further conceded that the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that the Appellants Tulsa Naik, Baikuntha Mallick and Kartik Mallick were in the gang of dacoity and committed the dacoity could not be assailed. 4. Mr Misra raised the following contentions: (i) The F.I.R. Ext. 1 is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure as it was recorded during the investigation and that the investigation based on this F.I.R. is illegal; and (ii)The identification with regard to Appellants Kanda, Naik, Pratig Mallick, Nari Mallick and Ram Bhookta is not reliable and the conviction based on such identification would be unsafe. 5. P.W. 2 informed the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 42, Gopinath Bisoi) at the school that a dacoity was being committed in his house. On the basis of this statement a formal F.I.R. recorded (Ext. 49) as P.W. 2 was not then in a position to furnish any details. After the dacoity was over, a plain paper F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was recorded. Ext. 1 is therefore a statement made by P.W. 2 to the Sub-Inspector of Police in the course of investigation and is inadmissible. The F.I.R. itself is not substantive evidence. It can be used for purpose of contradiction under Sections 145 and 155 or for corroboration u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. Ext. 1 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used either for contradiction or for corroboration of its maker in this case. Mr. The F.I.R. itself is not substantive evidence. It can be used for purpose of contradiction under Sections 145 and 155 or for corroboration u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. Ext. 1 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used either for contradiction or for corroboration of its maker in this case. Mr. Misra's contention on this point has force. 6. The contention that further investigation on the basis of Ext. 1 is illegal has no force. The matter is concluded by the decision reported in AIR 1945 18 (Privy Council) . Their Lordships observed that in a case of cognizable offence, the receipt and recording of a first information report was not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No doubt, in the great majority of cases, criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded in this way, but there is no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge, or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matters alleged. There is therefore no substance in this contention. 7. Mr. Misra frankly conceded that the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge could not be assailed with regard to Appellants Tulsa Naik, Baikuntha Mallick and Pratig Mallick. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has summarised the evidence against Tulsa Naik in paragraph 10, against Baikuntha Mallick in paragraph 12 and against Pratig Mallick in paragraph 19 of his judgment. I have carefully looked into the materials on record. In my view, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has reached the correct conclusion. 8. With regard to other four Appellants Mr. Misra attacked the finding on the basis that the identification was not reliable.Kanda Naik has been identified by Bidyadhar Jena (p.w. 5) and the Sub-Inspector Bisoi (P.W. 42). Both of them had also identified him in T. I. Parade. The evidence of identification in Court is T.I. Parade is a former statement of the witness identifying in Court and the former statement can be used either for contradiction or for corroboration. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has accepted their evidence as satisfactory . On close scrutiny I am satisfied that the identification evidence against him is acceptable. The evidence of identification in Court is T.I. Parade is a former statement of the witness identifying in Court and the former statement can be used either for contradiction or for corroboration. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has accepted their evidence as satisfactory . On close scrutiny I am satisfied that the identification evidence against him is acceptable. P.W. 10 Debendra Giri identified accused Pratig Mallick. He also identified him in T.I. Parade. The co-accused Baikuntha and Kartik implicated him in their confessional statements (Exts. 31 and 35). The co accused retracted their confession, but it was accepted as against them as being corroborated in material particulars. The evidence of the identifying witnesses against Baikuntha and Kartick corroborated the retracted confessional statements. Law is well settled that the retracted confession of an accused can be taken into consideration against co-accused if corroborated in material particular. These confessional statements lend assurance to the truth of the identification evidence or P.W. 10. Nari Mallick has been identified by Labanya Dasi (P.W. 3) who had also identified him in the T. I. Parade. He has been implicated in the confessional statements (Exts. 31 and 35) and the reasoning given above with reference to Pratig Mallick applies to his case with full force. Ram Bhookta has made a confession in Ext. 30 implicating himself. His retracted confession has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of S.I. (P.W. 42) who identified him in Court as also in the T.I. Parade. There is thus satisfactory identification against these four Appellants also and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to a correct conclusion. 9. On Satya Narain and Others Vs. The State, ;. Chunnoo and Others Vs. State, and Asharfi and Another Vs. The State. Mr. Misra argued that the evidence of one identification witness was not sufficient to found their conviction. It is unnecessary in this particular case to make a thorough discussion of these authorities which are very well discussed and instructive. The identification evidence is admissible u/s 9 of the Evidence Act. The statement of the identifier in the identification parade is merely a former statement of the identifier and can be used either for contradiction or for corroboration. It has been rightly pointed out in Asharfi and Another Vs. The identification evidence is admissible u/s 9 of the Evidence Act. The statement of the identifier in the identification parade is merely a former statement of the identifier and can be used either for contradiction or for corroboration. It has been rightly pointed out in Asharfi and Another Vs. The State, that every test identification of suspects should be held with only one suspect mixed up with 9 or 10 innocent persons, the innocent persons being changed every time a fresh suspect is put up for identification. This observation is also based on certain criminal circulars applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Identification by one eye-witness, particularly in a dark night, is ordinarily not sufficient. But so far as this case is concerned, this discussion is wholly academic 30 under-trial a were mixed up with 15 suspects. In cross-examination the identification evidence has not been assailed as causing injustice as larger number of innocent men were not mixed up with suspects. The encounter between the dacoits on the one hand and the police party and the villagers on the other spreaded over substantially for a long time; torches were lighted on either side and lanterns were present. There were sufficient opportunities for seeing the faces from close proximity and in light. The identification evidence in this case is not open to suspicion. Moreover the truth of the identification evidence gets some assurance from the confessional statements some cases. There is no substance in the contention that the identification evidence is not acceptable. Whether identification on the basis of the statement of one witness is satisfactory or not is a pure question of fact which will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be controlled by any invariable rule. 10. The sentences are not heavy in the circumstances of this particular case. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed