JUDGMENT T. S. Mishra, J. Balak Ram and Nemchand were charged under section 95 read with section 397, I. P. C. of having committed dacoity in the house of Rewa Ram in village Simaria Gausi, Police Station Neoria, District Pilibhit on the night intervening 9th and 10th September, 1970 They were also charged under section 395, I. P. C. seperately for committing dacoities in the house of Kundan Lal and Ram Lal of the said village on the said date. The trial court convicted Balak Ram and Nem Chand under section 395, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years Aggrieved Nem Chand bas preferred the appeal no. 1855 of 1971. Balak Ram and Nem Chand preferred another appeal no. 1914 of 1971 against the said order and judgment. Both the appeals were taken up together and as they arise out of the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Lerned counsel for the appellants took us through the relevant evidence on record for the purpose of showing that the assesment of the evidence by the trial court was erroneous and, therefore, unsustainable. The occurrence took place on the night intervening 9th and 10th September, 1970. The first information report was lodged with the police station Neoria, district Pilibhit on 10th September, 1970 at 7.5 A. M. by Rewa Ram. The case of the prosecution was that on the said night one Baba Sri Ram Das had visited the aforsaid village and gave devotional discourses from 8 to 10 P. M. from the Chabutara of Rewa Ram. After the discourses were over most of the people who had assembled there, left the place but Rewa Ram, Shiv Narain Lal, soninlaw of Rewa Ram, two sons of Rewa Ram and few other persons stayed on and kept themselves busy in talking with Baba Sri Ram Das. A petromax lantern was burning there. At about midnight 10 to 12 dacoits raided the place. Two of them were armed with guns and the rest had lathis with them. The dacoits caught hold of Liladhar and started beating him. Some other dacoits had torches with them which they flashed off and on. A lantern was also burning inside the house of Rewa Ram. At about midnight 10 to 12 dacoits raided the place. Two of them were armed with guns and the rest had lathis with them. The dacoits caught hold of Liladhar and started beating him. Some other dacoits had torches with them which they flashed off and on. A lantern was also burning inside the house of Rewa Ram. The dacoits dragged Liladhar inside the house and beat Nima sisterinlaw of Rewa Ram and his niece Smt. Gomti. Thereafter they started looting the property. Rewa Ram some how managed to escape from the place. On hearing his out cry some of the residents of the village reached the spot. The dacoits after committing the dacoity in the house of Rewa went to the house of Ram Lal and Kundan Lal and committed dacoity there also. The witnesses who had gathered at the spot saw the faces of the dacoits in the light of the petromax. After committing dacoities, the dacoits made good their escape. The report was thereafter lodged with the police on l0th September, 1970 at 7 A. M. Details of the property looted from the house of Rewa Ram were also given in the first information report. The police took up the investigation and arrested five persons including the present appellants. They were went baparda to the district Jail where test identification was held on 23rd November, 1970. In that test identification Nem Ghand was correctly identified by witnesses Rewa Ram, Munna Lal and Ram Lal. Appellant Balak Ram was also correctly identified by Rewa Ram and Munna Lal. Smt. Gomti Nima and Liladhar who had received injuries at the hands of dacoits were medically examined by Dr. S B. Agarwal on l0th September, 1970 between 5 and 540 P. M. After the test identification, the chargesheet against the present appellants were filed and after inquiry they were committed for trial The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been faslely implicated in the case; that they were shown to the witnesses at police station Kotwali, Ram Bharosey Lal (D. W. 1) was examined by them in defence. To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses and also tendered in evidence the statement of Dr. S. B. Agarwal recorded by the comitting Magistrate Ex. Ka15 along with injury report of Liladhar, Gomti and Nima Exts. Ka1 to Ka3. To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses and also tendered in evidence the statement of Dr. S. B. Agarwal recorded by the comitting Magistrate Ex. Ka15 along with injury report of Liladhar, Gomti and Nima Exts. Ka1 to Ka3. Rewa Ram, Munna Lal were the eye witnesses of fact. Murtaza Husain (P. W. 3) was posted at police station Kotwali and had taken accused Nem Chand baparda from Kotwali to the District Jail, Pilibhit. J. B. Singh the Magistrate First Glass (P. W. 4) had conducted the test identification of the accused on 23rd November, 1970 and proved the memo Ext. Ka7 Nem Ghand Subinspector (P. W. 5) had arrested the accused Balak Ram from the Village Gazipur Kunda and brought him baparda to the police station and had sent him in that condition on 28th September, 1970 through Constable Indra Lal to district jail, Pilibhit. Indra Lal had lodged the accused at the district jail. Bhawar Singh, Station Officer, Neoria (P. W. 7) had investigated the case and had prepared a site plan Ex. Ka9. He had also seen petromax lantern and prepared its memo Ext. Ka5. He had seen torches of the witnesses Ram Lal, Nanhey Lal and Bhopal and prepared memo Ext. Ka6. The chargesheet submitted by him was Ext. K.a10. He along with Rajendra Singh Station Officer, Kotwali had arrested Nem Chand and brought him baparda to Police Station Kotwali, Amir Ahmed P. W. 8 who was posted as Head Moharrir at the police station Neoria on September 10, 1970 proved the chik report of Ext Ka4. He had sent letters for medical examination Ext. Ka1/A, Ka2/A and Ka3/A. Jai Prakash Gupta who was Head Muharrir at the police station Kotwali from 16th October, 1970 to 18th October, 1970 proved the copies of the G. D. Ext. Ka11 and Ext. Ka14. He had also deposed that accused Nem Chand remained baparda at police station Kotwali and was not shown to the witnesses there. It was not disputed thatthe dacoity was committed in the house of Rewa Ram as also in the house of Ram Lal and Kundan Lal in the said village on the night intervening 9th and l0th September, 1970. The dacoits while committing dacoity had inflicted injuries on the person of Liladhar, Gomti and Nima who were medically examined by a doctor vide Ext. Ka1, Ka2 and Ka3. The dacoits while committing dacoity had inflicted injuries on the person of Liladhar, Gomti and Nima who were medically examined by a doctor vide Ext. Ka1, Ka2 and Ka3. In support of the case the prosecution placed reliance on the direct evidence furnished by Rewa Ram and Munna Lal. It may be mentioned at this stage that no property said to have been looted by the dacoits in the said dacoities was recovered from the appellants. The evidence against them is that of the identification. Both the appellants were correctly identified by Rewa Ram (P. W. 1) and Munna Lal (P. W 2) in the test identification parade held in the jail and also in the court. Rewa Ram is the victim of the dacoity. The dacoits had first raided his house and had looted the property therefrom. He deposed that while he, his son and other persons were sitting around Baba, Sri Ram Das and were having talk with them the dacoits came there. At that moment a petromax lantern was burning there. He had further deposed that a lantern was burning inside his house as well. When the dacoits went inside his house he managed to run away. On hearing his outcry some residents of the village reached the spot. Some of them had torches with them which were also flashed off and on. Thus there was sufficient light at the place which enabled Rewa Ram to see the faces of the dacoits. The torches of the village people were inspected by the Investigating Officer who prepared its memo Ext. Ka6. Moreover, the dacoits had also torches with them which they flashed off and on at the time of the commission of the dacoity. Munna Lal has corroborated by Rewa Ram with regard to these sources of light and in other respect as well. The court below, therefore, correctly concluded that the light at the spot was sufficient in which the faces of the dacoits were seen by the witnesses. Munna Lal is another victim of the dacoity which took place on that night and he was, therefore, also in a position to substantiate the prosecution case. The presence of Ram Lal and Munna Lal at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Rewa Ram had in fact lodged the report with the police on the next day. Munna Lal is another victim of the dacoity which took place on that night and he was, therefore, also in a position to substantiate the prosecution case. The presence of Ram Lal and Munna Lal at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Rewa Ram had in fact lodged the report with the police on the next day. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that there was every possibility of the witnesses having seen the accused in between the arrest and the test identification in jail and, therefore, the appellants should not be convicted merely on identification evidence. Nem Chand was arrested on the night intervening 16/17th October, 1970 at about 230 p.m. He was brought to Kotwali police station at 530 a.m. on 17th October, 1970 and was sent to Jail on 18th October, 1970. Thus he remained at Kotwali Police Station for the whole day on 17th October, 1970. It was submitted on behalf of Nem Chand that he was shown to the witnesses while he was kept at the police station Kotwali and that at any rate there was every possibility of his being shown to the witnesses while he was kept there. Bhawar Singh, Station Officer, Neoria (P W. 7) had arrested Nem Chand. He along with Rajendra Singh brought him to the police station Kotwali. Bbawar Singh (P. W. 7) had deposed that Nem Chand was brought baparda to police station Kotwali. This fact is also noted in Ext Ka11, Ka13 and Ka14 and also finds support from testimony of Jai Prakash Gupta Head Moharrir, Police Station Kotwali. Thereafter Nem Chand was taken to the Histrict Jail baparda by Constable Murtaza Husain on October 18, 1970 Nothing could be ellicited from the crossexamination of these witnesses for the prosecution which would go to show that they were making incorrect or false statement. Nem Chand was kept for the whole day at the police station Kotwali for the purpose of interrogation in connection with another crime. Consequently a remand was taken. Nothing could be shown from the evidence from which it could be inferred that Nem Chand was shown to the witnesses between the period of his arrest and the test identification in jail. Balak Ram was arrested by SubInspector Nem Singh on 27th October, 1970 from Village Gazipur Kunda and was brought baparda to police station. Nothing could be shown from the evidence from which it could be inferred that Nem Chand was shown to the witnesses between the period of his arrest and the test identification in jail. Balak Ram was arrested by SubInspector Nem Singh on 27th October, 1970 from Village Gazipur Kunda and was brought baparda to police station. He was put in lock up baparda and was sent in that condition to the district Jail by Constable Indra Lal on 28th September, 1970, as was stated by Indra Lal (P. W. 6) Nothing could be ellicited in his crossexamination from which it could be inferred that Balak Ram was shown to the witnesses. In fact, the appellants did not complain to the Magistrate who held the test identification that they had already been shown to the witnesses. Their complaint was that they were known to the witnesses from before. The evidence of Ram Bharosey Lal (D W. 1) was in fact of no consequence to the appellants. It was next urged that the test identification proceedings were not conducted faily and in accordance with law. As stated earlier Rewa Ram and Munna Lal identified both the appellants in the trial Court as two of the dacoits whom they bad seen at the time and place of occurrence. They had also correctly identified the appellants in the test identification para i.e. It is by now settled law that the substantive evidence is the statement of a witness in Court and the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence, the safe rule being that the sworn testimony of the witnesses in court as to identity of the accused who is a stranger to him, as a general rule, requires corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding. Identification parades are ordinarily held at the instance of the Investigating Officer for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify either the properties which are the subjectmatter of alleged offence or the persons who are alleged to have been concerned in the offence. Such tests or parades belong to the investigation stage and they serve to provide the investigating authority with material to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. It is accordingly desirable that such test parades are held at the earliest possible opportunity. Such tests or parades belong to the investigation stage and they serve to provide the investigating authority with material to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. It is accordingly desirable that such test parades are held at the earliest possible opportunity. Early opportunity to identify also tends to minimise the chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses fading away by reason of long lapse of time. Vital factor in determining the value of such identification parades is the effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for holding them against the identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witness being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the identification of the accused concerned. Although it is desirable to hold identification parade at the earliest opportunity, where there is a delay of three months in holding the identification parade, it is a duty of the accused to crossexamine the police officer who conducted the investigation and the Magistrate who held the parade if the accused wished to take advantage out of such undue delay. Sec Bharat Singh v. State of U. P.( 1973 (3) Supreme Court Cases 896) In the instant case the identification was done after about two months but no question was asked from the Investigating Officer as to why and how the delay occurred. Whether the contention is that the identification parade was held in an inadequate manner or that there was any delay in holding it, the Magistrate who held the parade and the police officer who conducted investigation should have been crossexamined in that behalf. No crossexamination was however, directed there with regard to the delay in holding identification parades. It was next urged that Nem Chand was bald and had no hair above the forehead. It was submitted that it did not appear from the memo of identification proceedings that persons having similar bald head were mixed in the parade along with Nem Chand and, therefore, the identification of Nem Chand in the identification parade should not have been relied upon. It is true that in the memorandum of identification proceedings it is not specifically mentioned that few persons having similar bald head were mixed with Nem Chand in the parade. It is true that in the memorandum of identification proceedings it is not specifically mentioned that few persons having similar bald head were mixed with Nem Chand in the parade. On being crossexamined, the Magistrate, however, deposed that he did not find it necessary to mention that fact in the memo as the persons having similar bald head were mixed with Nem Chand in the parade. Some explanation was given by Sri J. B. Singh the Magistrate (P. W 4) with regard to Balak Ram, whose eye brow were said to be joined in the middle. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sri J. B. Singh (P. W. 4). It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the identification parade was held in an irregular manner or there was any undue delay in holding it. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the memo of identification proceedings it appears that the appellant were identified in the test identification parade by two witnesses Rewa Ram (P. W. 1) and Munna Lal (P. W. 2). Rewa Ram made no mistakes in the test identification whereas Munna Lal correctly identified two persons as these who, according to him had participated in the commission of the dacoities in question, but made a mistake in idenfying a third person. The learned counsel worked out the percentage and gave to the witnesses who had made no mistakes namely Rewa Ram (P. W 1) 100 per cent. marks and to the witnesses Munna Lal (P. W 2) 66 per cent marks as he had correctly identified two persons but committed mistake with regard to the third. On this date the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that unless the percentage worked out comes to more than 80 per cent. It cannot be said that the witness is a reliable witness and as the percentage with regard to Munna Lal worked out was only 66 per cent his testimony should not be relied upon. Ignoring that testimony of Munna Lal, the argument was, there remained the evidence of a solitary witness Rewa Ram against the appellants on the basis of which alone the appellants should not be convicted. This argument does not appeal to me. Ignoring that testimony of Munna Lal, the argument was, there remained the evidence of a solitary witness Rewa Ram against the appellants on the basis of which alone the appellants should not be convicted. This argument does not appeal to me. I am not prepared to accept that the evidentiary value of a witness should be reduced to an arithmetical formula and the identification evidence should be accepted or neglected on the basis of the mathematical calculation alone. The result of the identification parade may be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the statement of the witnesses in the court. It is not a substantive evidence. If a witness had made a good number of mistakes in identifying the suspects in the identification parade it might be urged that his power of observation was defective or that his memory bad failed that the likelihood of his making a mistake was greater. The evidence of each witness is however, to be examined and weighed in the light of the facts and the attending circumstances and not on the basis of any arthematical formula. In the instant case Munna Lal who "was the victim of dacoity had correctly identified both the appellants in the test identification parade as also in Court. We made a mistake in identifying one person in that identification parade. Rewa Ram committed no mistakes in identification. There was sufficient light at the place of occurrence which enabled Munna Lal to identify the dacoits. It was not established that any external aid was rendered to him to identify the appellants in that identification parade. In these circumstances, his evidence cannot be ignored merely on the ground that he wrongly picked out one person as one of the dacoits. In my view, the trial court was correct in placing reliance on the evidence of Munna Lal (P. W. 2). Both Rewa Ram and Munna Lal correctly identified the appellants in the trial Court. The identification of the appellants by these witnesses in the trial court finds corroboration from the identification in the test identification parade. No material contradiction in their statements were pointed out. There was no reason for them to implicate these accused persons falsely. Both Rewa Ram and Munna Lal correctly identified the appellants in the trial Court. The identification of the appellants by these witnesses in the trial court finds corroboration from the identification in the test identification parade. No material contradiction in their statements were pointed out. There was no reason for them to implicate these accused persons falsely. In fact, it was not the case of the appellants that Rewa Ram and Munna Lal bore any illwill or grudge against them from before the commission of the dacoity and had therefore, falsely, implicated them. Having carefully examined the entire evidence on record, I find that Rewa Ram and Munna Lal who had personally seen the occurrence and bad given a vivid account of it are reliable witnesses and the trial court committed no error in placing reliance on their testimony. The trial court therefore, rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence under section 395, I. P. C. Both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against each of the appellants is maintained. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender forthwith failing which they shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to each of them.