JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the accused-appellant, Udai Singh from jail who has been convicted under Sections 395 and 397, IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. As the accused-appellant was unrepresented Shri N. L. Pareek was appointed to represent him under the Legal Aid Programme. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the night intervening between 25th and 26th November, 1974 at about 11 a.m.m about 15 persons committed dacoity in the house of Kishan of village Cirsa, Police Station, Deeg. These persons were armed with deadly weapons. They took away ornaments of the ladies and other valuable articles from the house of Kishan. The ornaments of Mst. Rama, Mst. Gir Raji and Mst. Har Dei were looted. It was alleged that three dacoits were standing on the roof of the house and some 10-12 dacoits entered the house while armed with the country made revolvers and guns and they were flashing torch light. It was also contended that on the same night, the marriage of Mst. Birina had taken place. The prosecution case is that the accused-appellant could be identified in the flashes of light which were thrown by the dacoits from the five-shelled -battery. The electric bulb was also burning on a nearby well from which light was coming. The accused-appellant after his arrest furnished information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of which one pair of silver anklets and one golden ring were recovered. He was correctly identified by Mst. Birma and the ornaments recovered from him were correctly identified by Mst. Lilawati and Mst. Har Dei. In the incident, Vijai Singh, Laxman and Gordhan received gun-shot injuries. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. No evidence was led on his behalf. The learned Sessions Judge held the charges proved against the accused-appellant, and convicted him under Sections 395 and 397, IPC and sentenced as indicated above. 4. On behalf of the accused-appellant, it was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused-appellant took part in the dacoity. It was also contended that the entire conviction has been based on the identification of the accused-appellant by Mst. Birma. 4. On behalf of the accused-appellant, it was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused-appellant took part in the dacoity. It was also contended that the entire conviction has been based on the identification of the accused-appellant by Mst. Birma. It was further contended that the accused-persons were putting one `dhatta' and as the night was dark, it was not possible for Mst. Birma to have identified the accused. It was further contended that the identification parade also took place after a long time, and so no reliance can be placed on such an identification parade, especially when Mst. Birma did not give out any specific or peculiar marks or features of identification of the accused-appellant. It was further contended that the ornaments which were identified-by Mst. Rama, Mst. Har Dei and Mst. Lilawati are of such a character that they could be easily found in the village also. It was, therefore, contended that the appeal filed by the accused-appellant may be accepted. 5. On behalf of the State, the learned Public Prosecutor was heard. It was contended that Mst. Birma is a witness of sterling worth, and that her statement has not been shaken by cross-examination. It was further contended that she was standing nearby for about an hour and that she had ample opportunity of seeing the accused in the light of the flashes of five shelled battery. It was also contended that an electric bulb was burning on the nearby well, the light of which was also coming there. It was further contended that the prosecution story has been fully corroborated by the information tendered by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and further corroborated by the recovery of the ornaments which were identified by Mst. Rama, Mst. Har Dei and Mst. Lilawati. It was further contended that the prosecution story, further gets support from the gun-shot injuries received by Laxman, Girdhari and Vijai Singh. 6. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the Public Prosecutor have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 7. Mst. Birma has categorically stated that she had seen the accused for about an hour while standing at close quarters. She has further stated that she could see the accused-appellant in the light of the torch flashes from the five-shelled battery. 7. Mst. Birma has categorically stated that she had seen the accused for about an hour while standing at close quarters. She has further stated that she could see the accused-appellant in the light of the torch flashes from the five-shelled battery. Her statement that sin could also see the accused appellant in the light of the electric bulb which was burning on the nearby well, has not been shaken by any amount of cross-examination. The existence of electric bulb has been corroborated by all other material witnesses. The accused-appellant was correctly identified by Mst. Birma at the identification parade. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that he was known to the witness Mst. Birma at the Police Station does not find support from any quarter and this plea has been held by the learned Sessions Judge to be only an after-thought. The evidence on this point has been carefully examined and there is nothing on record on the basis of which any other inference could be drawn. The information led by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which ultimately led to the recovery of the ornaments also supports the prosecution story. These ornaments have been identified by Mst. Rama, Mst. Lilawati and Mst. Gir Raji. 8. Out of 14-15 accused persons only the accused-appellant was arrested. The accused-appellant and his party were all armed with deadly weapons like country made revolvers and guns. 9. After having given my most careful and anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused-appellant. 10. There is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. 11. The accused-appellant and the jail authorities may be informed accordingly. *******