JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by which he convicted Panchu, Shera and Ram Khiladi under actions 395 and 457 IPC. He sentenced them under section 395 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 100 in default where of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and under section 45.7 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a dacoity was committed in the house of Hira Singh of Dodhikapura Moja Sikroda, Police Station Bari, District Bharatpur on the night intervening 4th-and 5th January, 1974 at about 9 p.m. The dacoits were 15-20 in number, stealthily entered the house and carried away ornaments, apparels, and watches. While committing dacoity, they frightened the inmates of the house by firing their guns Six of the offenders were armed with guns and pistols while the rest were armed with lathis. In the F.I.R. Ex. PI Hira Singh stated that one of the dacoits who was of short stature was said to be Mora. He tried to identify the other accused persons and he found that one looked like Kundan of Chhotikapura, other two looked like Moji and Ram Khiladi . It was also reported that the dacoits had also ransacked the houses of Gulab, Uttam, Ram Prasad and Udai Singh. Upon a report of this occurrence having been lodged in the Police Station, Bari, a case under section 216, 458 and 380 IPC was registered and investigation begdft. 3. Ram Khiladi accused was arrested on 30-1-74. He gave disclosure statement Ex. P5 to S.H.O, Ram Takshak PW 11. In pursuance of this information, head constable Ram Das PW4 recovered one embroidered bag and one green Chaddar and a Saree of golden fabric at his instance from his house lying under a stack of fodder. These articles were later on identified by Ram Beti PW8 and Hari Singh PW9 in the test identification held before the Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, vide memo Ex. P7. 4. Appellant Shera and Panchu were arrested later on and put up for test identification on 25-5-75, vide memo Ex. P2. Shera was correctly identified by Heera Singh PW1 and Hari Singh PW9. Accused Pancham and Panchu was correctly identified by Hira Singh PW 1. 5. P7. 4. Appellant Shera and Panchu were arrested later on and put up for test identification on 25-5-75, vide memo Ex. P2. Shera was correctly identified by Heera Singh PW1 and Hari Singh PW9. Accused Pancham and Panchu was correctly identified by Hira Singh PW 1. 5. The investigation also disclosed that five or more persons were involved in the crime out of whom Mora died in an encounter in September, 1974, while the remaining accused are at large. After completion of investigation, a challan was however, put up against the appellants under sections 395 and 397 IPC. The learned trial judge also added a charge under Section 457 IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. Ram Khiladi was not subjected to test identification. The learned trial judge did not place reliance on the statements of Hira Singh PW1, Uttam PW5 and Hari Singh PW9 with regard to the identification made by them of accused Ram Khiladi in the court. Hira Singh in his report Ex. Pi had mentioned that one of the culprits looked "like Ram Khiladi s/o Nakta Kachhi resident of Payekapura'. Cross-examination, Hira Singh said that Ram Khiladi was known to him before hand, but since he was not quite sure if Ram Khiladi was amongst the dacoits or not, he stated in his report Ex. PI that one of the culprits looked like Ram Khiladi . This evidence of Hira Singh was rejected as being a mere guess work. Evidence of Uttam PW5 was rejected because he recognised Ram Khiladi by touching his hand for the first time in the court. Hari Singh PW9 deposed that the dacoits had flashed torches and three of them looked like Kundan, Megha and Ram Khiladi . His evidence was also rejected on the same ground. Further reason for disbelieving this evidence of identification was absence of corroboration by test identification in respect of Ram Khiladi . But the learned trial judge held that the recovery of the articles from the house of Ram Khiladi in pursuance of his disclosure statement dearly fixed his identity. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Ram Khiladi now submits that these findings of the learned trial judge cannot be sustained in law. But the learned trial judge held that the recovery of the articles from the house of Ram Khiladi in pursuance of his disclosure statement dearly fixed his identity. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Ram Khiladi now submits that these findings of the learned trial judge cannot be sustained in law. From the mere recovery of the articles which were of common use by most of the people and were recovered after one month of the occurrence cannot lead to the conclusion that Ram Khiladi was one of the dacoits. Out of the four witnesses of recovery, two were not produced and those produced, namely, Kailash PW 10 and Ramsarup PW 11 have not supported the recovery. Head Constable Ramdas alone proves the recovery of the articles but he is not a man to whom the information was given, nor was his name mentioned in the information memo Ex. P5. It was also pointed out that the head constable Ramdas was annoyed with him because Chet Ram a cousin of the accused had filed a complaint against him. Hari Singh and the accused had quarrelled over the goats of Har Singh which had grazed his crop. Thus both the police and the complainant were angry with him and foisted this false recovery against the accused. Moreover, recovery can at best prove that he was in possession of a stolen article and therefore, could at the most implicate him only under section 411 IPC. 8. It was alleged that dacoity was committed in the houses also of Gulab, Ram Prasad and Udai Singh but they were not produced about the identity of the accused and that further it is urged has weakend the evidence of identification. 9. The learned counsel in support of his contention relies on Budhsen and Another v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1321 wherein it was held that as a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. But the evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character, It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness in court as to the identify of the accused who are strangers to them in the form of earlier identification proceedings. There may however be an exception to this general rule when for example the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration. 10. In Bhurgtri v. State, 1954 RLW 404 , this court appears to have held that recovery of a property from an accused does neither prove participation in dacoity, nor can it provide corroboration of the sworn testimony in court as to identity. 11. I have considered the arguments and the law cited together with the fact of this case. It may be noticed that while referring to the latter decision, a full Bench of this Court said in State of Rajasthan v. Ranjita, 1962 RLW 24 that corroborative evidence may come from various circumstantial factors ; one of them being the evidence of test identification. Other factors may for instance be, the sufficiency of the light, the distance from which the witness watched, the period for which he could see the accused and the actual part which the accused played in the occurrence. If permitted, then, such instances of relevant circumstances can further be added to, under section 9 of the Evidence Act. When a party's identity with an ascertained person is in issue, it may be proved or disproved not only by direct testimony, or opinion evidence, presumptively by similarity or dissimilarity of characteristics e.g. age, height, size, hair, complexion, voice, handwriting, manner, dress, distinctive marks,- faculties or peculiarities including blood group, as well as or residence, occupation, family relationship, education, travel, religion, knowledge of particular people, places or facts and other details of personal history (Phipson 12th Ed. page 170). Such corroboration can also come from photographs, similarity of previous acts, finger and foot-prints, anthropometry, and presumptive evidence called inferential identity. The last category will comprise those cases which were covered by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act such as a presumption that a man found in an unexplained possession of stolen goods soon after the theft The person who committed the theft. Even in Bhurgiri v. State , the court recognised that such a presumption can provide corroboration of identity in a rare case. 12. Even in Bhurgiri v. State , the court recognised that such a presumption can provide corroboration of identity in a rare case. 12. Now, it appears to me that if a test identification were held in respect of Ram Khiladi , it would have been a sheer waste of time because Ram Khiladi was known to the witnesses beforehand and was not a stranger to them. He was mentioned by name in the F. I. R. The only question therefore, is whether the impression of the witnesses that one of the culprits looked like Ram Khiladi could be regarded a correct and reliable impression. The identification which the witness made in /he court is the only substantive piece of evidence and this evidence led before the trial court can, in spite of its remaining uncorroborated by a prior test identification be believed because it is corroborated first by the F. 1. R. itself in the sense that Hira Singh gathered his impression at the time of the commission of the offence that one of the persons looked like Ram Khiladi and further by the fact that recovery of three stolen pieces of cloth were made upon his information and at his instance from his house. The bag, chhadar and saree may not be of an uncommon pattern but at the same time their owner can on account of its use, correctly identify them as was done by the witnesses in the case, namely Ram Beti PW 8, and Hari Singh PW 9. In Public Prosecutor v. I.C. Lingish, AIR 1954 Mad 433 (at 436). Ramaswami J observed that such identification may be safely relied upon. But at the same time a witness would not be able to formulate his reasons for the identification since it is based upon general untranslatable impressions of the mind. "I may readily observe my veshti, my cow, my wife's addigai or my friends hand writing in the midst of a multitude of other things in most respects like them. But if questioned, I would not be able to formulate any cogent or intelligent reason for the identification. It would be fatuous to discredit such identification on the ground that reasons are not being formulated for them." 13. But if questioned, I would not be able to formulate any cogent or intelligent reason for the identification. It would be fatuous to discredit such identification on the ground that reasons are not being formulated for them." 13. The result of this discussion is that though I do not agree with the learned trial judge that identification made by Hira Singh PW 1 and Hari Singh PW 9 was a mere guess, nevertheless, his finding that Ram Khiladi was certainly one of the members of the gang of dacoity is a correct finding and I uphold the same. 14. In respect of the appellants Panchu and Shera the learned trial judge held that the witnesses correctly identified them in the test identification. Hira Singh PW 1 had deposed that it was a moonlit night besides the dacoits were flashing their torches. The dacoits were busy in plundering for about two hours and he had sufficient time to see the accused from a close quarter. The accused were seen by him after the occurrence only in test parade. I therefore agree with the learned trial judge that the testimony of Hira Singh is quite natural and credible. Hari Singh PW 9 had a similar story to tell and he was also able to correctly identify them in the test identification. Both according to him were armed with guns. Witness Uttam PW 5 also supported these two witnesses that the accused Panchu and Shera were amongst the dacoits but his evidence was rejected by the learned trial judge because he was not sent for identification when the parade was held. The accused had taken a plea that they were shown to the prosecution witnesses before the test identification took place. But this plea was rejected by the learned trial judge. The learned trial court was further impressed by the circumstance that when Shera was put a question whether he had any gun with him at the time of the commission of dacoity, he replied that he was unarmed but immediately he changed his version and stated that he was not concerned with the dacoity at all. There is hardly any valid reason advanced on which the finding arrived at by the learned trial judge could be disturbed. It stood proved beyond any manner of reasonable doubt that Shera and Panchu were also members of the gang of dacoits. 15. There is hardly any valid reason advanced on which the finding arrived at by the learned trial judge could be disturbed. It stood proved beyond any manner of reasonable doubt that Shera and Panchu were also members of the gang of dacoits. 15. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that I find no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. The sentences that have been awarded to them are also quite reasonable, and I dismiss these appeals. *******