Judgment Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J. 1. The appellants of this case along with three others stand convicted by a common judgment dated 30/9/1975 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in respect of a dacoity committed in the house of the informant Moti Chandbhagat (P. W.2), situate in village Jalalpur within Barharwa Police Station of the district of Santhal Parganas, in the night between the 25th and 26th of May, 1977, the dacoits being 10 to 11 in number and this village being at a distance of five miles from the Barhawara Police Station. Nand Kumar Singh (P. W.10), the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police learnt about this dacoity while be was in village Maharajpur in connection with another criminal case and on getting information, he went to village Jalalpur where he reached at 4 p. m. on 26.5.1971. He found the informant in his house lying injured and prepared the injury report which is exhibit 6. By that time the Medical Officer of goalkhor, Md. Ekramul Haque (P. W.9) at the request of the informant, had already examined those injuries at 9.30 a m. on that day and had given him medical aid. There P. W.10 recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Which has been marked as Exhibit 4, the formal F. I. R. Exhibit 5 having been drawn up by the officer-in-charge Sawaminath Lal (P. W.12 ). The informant and the other inmates of his house succeeded in identifying some of the dacoits in the light of the lantern burning in the courtyard as also in the flash of the torches in the hands of the dacoits. While some of the dacoits identified were named in the fardbeyan, the description of some of them, whose names were not known to the informant but were known to him by face from before, were mentioned therein. Certain overt acts were also attributed to some of the dacoits. One of the dacoits subsequently identified as appellant Masoom was said to be a resident of village Dohedpur in the district of Murshidabad and the overt act alleged on his part was that he was catching the feet of the informant while he was being assaulted by the appellant Israful and another dacoit Dahu alias Daghu Sheikh (Dahu) who stands convicted. Two of the dacoits subsequently identified as appellant Badruddin and Islam, were described as Pakistani nationals related to appellant Israful and residing in his house at Kakajol since one month before the occurrence. Like Dahu, Islam also stands convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. 2. The dacoits, as further stated in the fardbeyan, succeeded in removing cash, ornaments, utensils, clothes etc. , as detailed in the fardbeyan, all worth about Rs.2,000. Lastly it was also stated in the fardbeyan that appellant israful and his two Pakistani brothers including appellant Badruddin made extra-judicial confession before Md. Hasan All (P. W.7), Md. Sanaul (P. W.6)and others, P. W.6 being a Mukhia, and in pursuance of the extra-judicial confession some of the looted properties had been recovered from the house of appellant Israful. While incriminating themselves as the dacoits committing the dacoity in the house of the informant, appellant Israful also named the other dacoiis including appellant Masoon participating in the said dacoity. 3. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of police (P. W.10) reached village kakajol and there he took charge of appellant Israful, Islam and appellant badruddin who had already been arrested by the villagers as also of the articles recovered from the house of appellant Israful, which had been detailed by P. W.6 in the chart exhibit 2 and regarding which P. W.10 prepared the seizure list exhibit 7. Two test identification parades both in respect of the suspects and the recovered articles, were arranged and held by Samuel Goria (P. W.11), the District Sub-Registrar. The result of the test identification parade, in respect of the suspects is contained in the test identification parade chart exhibit 8 and that in respect of the articles recovered is contained in the chart exhibit 9. The chart exhibit 9 shows that the informants wife Babhni devi (P. W.3), a tendered witness, and Sarla Kumari, his daughter, (P. W.4)as also (P. W.2) succeeded in identifying all the articles recovered from the house of appellant Israful, as the articles looted by the dacoits. Ultimately the police submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants and six others all of whom, on being committed to the Court of Session were tried by the Additional sessions Judge. 4. The three appellants and others were all charged under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately the police submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants and six others all of whom, on being committed to the Court of Session were tried by the Additional sessions Judge. 4. The three appellants and others were all charged under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Israful was further charged under sections 412 and 216 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. All the accused including the three appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge, their simple case being that they had been falsely impleaded. No defence witness was examined but an elaborate written statement was filed on their behalf. 6. The trial court acquitted the three of the co-accused for the reasons stated in the judgment but convicted the remaining six. Appellant Israful was convicted under sections 39s and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 2 years respectively and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 216-A of the Indian Penal Code. The other two appellants were convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The three appellants out of the six convicted have challenged their conviction and sentences in this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant on the night of occurrence. It was also not challenged that dacoits succeeded in looting away a lot of properties including those recovered from the house of appellant Israful, all belonging to the informant, while the conviction of appellant Israful under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code was not challenged, the only contention on his behalf was that the sentence imposed on him was excessive and needed reduction. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the other two appellants, namely, Masoom and Badruddin, was however, challenged as rllegal on the ground that the same was not warranted by the evidence on iecord. 8. The conviction of appellant Israful not having been challenged, the only point for determination as regards him is whether the sentence imposed on him by the trial court was excessive. The evidence disclosed that appellant israful played an important role in the commission of the dacoity. He did not hesitate even in injuring the informant. 8. The conviction of appellant Israful not having been challenged, the only point for determination as regards him is whether the sentence imposed on him by the trial court was excessive. The evidence disclosed that appellant israful played an important role in the commission of the dacoity. He did not hesitate even in injuring the informant. A lot of the properties, looted by the dacoits, were recovered from his house on his own extra-judicial confession. The offence, undoubtedly, is a serious one and it necessitate deterrent punishment. The sentence imposed on appellant Israful is thus quite commensurate with his guilt and there is DO scope for any reduction. The contention raised on his behalf, therefore, fails. 9. Coming to appellant Masoom Azimuddin, as admitted by him in his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C, he is a resident of village Dohedupur within Faraka police station in the district of Murshidabad, which tallies with the description in the fardbeyan. He appears to have been put on a test identification parade on 26.7.1971 though he was arrested on 27.5.1977 at his village home. This test identification parade was conducted by the District Sub registrar P. W.11 in the Rajmahal Sub-jail, exhibits being the result of the test identification parade. P. W.2 appears to have identified him in the test identification parade as one who had pressed his feet though P. W.3 and p. W.4 could not. 10. Three contentions were raised in connection with the test identification parade held in respect of appellant Masoom. The first was that as the other inmates of the house, namely, P. W.8 and P. W.4 failed to identify this appellant in the test identification parade, no value should be attached to the result of the test identification parade made by the P. W.2. In a dacoity it may not always be possible for each and every inmate of the house to identify the dacoits as identification depends on various factors including the opportunity to identify. As this appellant was pressing the feet of P. W.2 while he was being assaulted, he might have sufficient opportunity to identify him. This contention has, therefore, no force. The other contention was that the test identification parade having been held after considerable delay, its corroborative value stood weakened. This contention has indeed some force. As this appellant was pressing the feet of P. W.2 while he was being assaulted, he might have sufficient opportunity to identify him. This contention has, therefore, no force. The other contention was that the test identification parade having been held after considerable delay, its corroborative value stood weakened. This contention has indeed some force. Appellant Masoom was arrested on 26/5/1971 but he was put on test identification parade after considerable delay on 26/7/1971 without any explanation for the delay, Such identification parades which belong to the investigation stage, serve to provide the authority with material to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on the right lines and, therefore, it is desirable to hold them at the earliest opportunity. A further reason also is that an early opportunity to identify tends to minimise the chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses fading away due to long lapse of time. There is yet another reason. In between the date of his arrest and the date of test identification parade, this appellant, as contended, was produced in court on four dates, namely, 28/5/1971, 11/6/1971, 24/6/1971 and 21/7/1971 and unless adequate precautions were taken, of which there is no evidence, the probability of p. W.2 seeing appellant in court on those dates cannot be ruled out. The last contention in this respect was that since appellant Masoom was known to the informant from before the occurrence, no value should be attached to this test identification parade. On the own showing of the informant he know appellant Masoom from before the occurrence. Though he recognized him by face, he did not know his name. If the informant recognized appellant masoom at the time and place of occurrence as one of the dacoits hailling from village Dohedpur, the identification of this appellant made by him in the test identification parade would be of little value. 11. A test identification parade in the very nature of things is merely a corroborative place of occurrence. Let us, however, consider if there is substantive evidence in this case to bring home to appellant Masoom the charge under section 395. 11. A test identification parade in the very nature of things is merely a corroborative place of occurrence. Let us, however, consider if there is substantive evidence in this case to bring home to appellant Masoom the charge under section 395. (P. W.2) in his evidence in the sessions court identified appellant Masoom both the name and face as the persons standing behind his legs presumably meaning pressing his legs at the time he was being as saulted by the dacoits As shown above, appellent Masoom is a resident of Dohedpur and the dacoit said to be pressing his legs was described in the fardbeyanas a resident of Dohedpur. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examina of P. W.2 for which his evidence on this point should be discredited. If p. W.2 did not know the name of this appellant at the time he spoke to the villagers about this dacoity, his statement that he did not tell his name to any of bis witnesses cannot introduce any improbability in his evidence. The name of this appellant was disclosed as one of the dacoits in the extra-judicial confession of which the informant came to know before his fardbeyar was recorded and, therefore there is nothing improbable in his statement in para 9 at his cross examination that named appellant Masoom before the A. S. I, of police. P. W.2 denied the bald suggestion that the father of appellant masoom cultivated his land as Bataidar. There is no suggestion about any enmity. There is no material on the record even to probabilise the existence of any enmity between the informant and appellant Masoom and thus there is absolutely no reason why P. W.2 would have falsely implicated this appellant masoom. Thus P. W.2 appears to be a trustworthy and reliable witness. 12. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that no conviction can be based on the uncorroborated teatimony of a single witness. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in every case of dacoity, it there is identification by only one witness, that identification should never be accepted. Evidence is to be weighed and not counted. In any case the testimony of single witness, if believed, is sufficient to believe a fact. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in every case of dacoity, it there is identification by only one witness, that identification should never be accepted. Evidence is to be weighed and not counted. In any case the testimony of single witness, if believed, is sufficient to believe a fact. Every instance of identification in circumstances which usually accompany a case of dacoity has to be judged on the facts of the particular case presented by the prosecution and if the evidence of a single witness, on close scrutiny, is held to be trustworthy, there is no legal difficulty in conviction on the evidence of a single witness if he is found to be trustworthy and creditable. Be that as it may, in the instant csse, apart from the evidence of P. W.2. there is another circumstance showing the participation of appellant-Masoom in the said dacoity which takes us to the consideration of the story of extra-judicial confession made by appellant Israful and his two Pakistani brothers, namely, appellant badruddin and co-accused Islam. 13. Hasan Ali P. W.7 is a close neighbour of appellant Israful. In the morning at 8 a. m. on 26/5/1971, Monachanda P. W.8, the village Chowkidar, informed P. W.7 about the dacoity in the house of the informant. P. W.7 went to the house of P. W.2 and found him injured. The informant told him the names of the dacoits whom he had identified and appellant Israful was one of the dacoits named. As natural p. W.7 then returned to his house and sent the Chowkidar to call for appellant israful. Md. Samaul P. W, 6 was his villager and was the Mukhia of the village. P. W.7 sent for him as well and the latter also came in his house. Appellant Israful with his two Pakistani brothers Islam and appellant Badruddin came to the house of P. W.7. All of them, namely, appellant Israful, badruddin and Islam confessed their guilt before P. W.6 and P. W.7 specifically stating that they along with others had committed dacoity in the house of P. W.2. Among the other dacoits appellant Israful named appellant masoom besides others. The further confession made was that the looted articles, which had been carried to his house, were lying ia the house of appellant Israful, which he could point out by going to his house. Among the other dacoits appellant Israful named appellant masoom besides others. The further confession made was that the looted articles, which had been carried to his house, were lying ia the house of appellant Israful, which he could point out by going to his house. It was at this stage that P. W.6 recorded their confessional statement Ext.3 in presence of persons including P. W.7 and the three confessors put their left thumb impression on the same Exhibit 3 shows that the confessors put their left thumb impression on finding the statements contained in Exhibit 3 to be correct. As appellant Israful disclosed the clue regarding existence of the looted properties, P. W.6 the Mukhia, along with others went to his (Israfups)house where a bag containing articles were discovered. The Mukhia prepared a list of those articles which is Exhibit ?. Being convinced of the participation of the three confessors in the dacoity on the basis of the confesional statement as also recovery of the looted properties, the Mukhia arrested the three confessors and kept them locked in the house of P. W.7. The evidence also is that subsequently when the A. S. I, of police P. W.10 went to village Kakjot, the three arrested confessors and also the properties recovered were made over to him. P. W.10 seized these articles, Exhibit 7/1 being the seizure list. All these recovered properties were put on test identification parade held by the district Sub Registrar P. W.11, Exhibit 9 being the test identification chart, which seems to have been duly held P. W.2, P. W.3 and P. W.4 identified all these articles as belonging to them which had been looted by the dacoits. 14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the Mukhia was a person in authority, no value should be attached to this confessional statements. The evidence establishes that the confession was made not only before P. W.6 but before P. W.7 and others also at the house of P. W.7. A confessional statement, if it is found to be voluntary and without any threat, inducement or promise cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that it was made in presence of a person in authority. A confessional statement, if it is found to be voluntary and without any threat, inducement or promise cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that it was made in presence of a person in authority. Sec.24 of the Evidence Act provides that : "a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him". Referring to the statement of P. W.6 that three confessore were arrested and locked up, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this showed that the confessional statement was the result of inducement and threat. This contention is without any merit. No such suggestion appears to have been thrown either to P. W.6 or P. W.7. On going through the evidence of P. W.6 and P. W.7 minutely, it would appear that the recovery of the stolen articles and the arrest and lock up took place only after the making and recording of the confessional statement. There is thus nothing to bring this extra judicial confession within the mischief of section 24 of the indian Evidence Act. 15. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the confessional statement was made before the Chowkidar P. W.8, it cannot be admissible in evidence. Sec.25 of the Evidence Act provides that no conferssion made "to a police officer" shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. There is no evidence to show that P. W.8 was actually present when this confessional statements were made much less is there any evidence to show that they were made to P. W.8. though tendered by the prosecution, P. W.8 was cross examined by the defence. No suggestion was thrown to P. W.8 in this connection. No such suggestion has also been made either to P. W.7. Thus section 25 of the Evidence Act can have no application to the facts of the instant case. though tendered by the prosecution, P. W.8 was cross examined by the defence. No suggestion was thrown to P. W.8 in this connection. No such suggestion has also been made either to P. W.7. Thus section 25 of the Evidence Act can have no application to the facts of the instant case. This confessional statement can not also be brought within the mischief of section 26 of the evidence Act as it was not made by the confessors while in the custody of any police officer. There is no material to show that either P. W.6 or P. W.7 has any animus against the appellants. P. W.7 has denied the suggestion that he had any dispute with appellants Israful. The evidence of P. W.6 and P. W.7 appears to be natural and reliable and I see absolutely no reason to reject it. In face of the evidence of P. W.6 and P. W.7, the suggestion thrown to P. W.6 that no confession was made nor did the confessors put their L. T. I. must be rejected outright. Thus the prosecution has established beyond doubts that appellant Israful and his two Pakistani brothers appellant Badruddin and Islam made the confessional statements as evidenced by exhibit 3 before P. W.6 and P. W.7 and put their left thumb imporession thereon out of their own accord without any threat or inducement or promise and thus the same was voluntary. 16. The statements made in exhibit 3 stand corroborated in meterial particulars by the other evidence adduced and circumstances established in this case. Appellant Badruddin and co-accused Islam are indisputedly pakistani nationals. Exhibit 3 stated that these two Pakistani nationals were phuphera brothers of appellant Israful and on coming from Pakistan they were residing in his house since one month before the occurrence. To a question put in this examination under section 342 Cr. P. C. whether he was a pakistani national and was residing at Kakjor on coming to India without passport from before the commission of this dacoity, the reply given by the appellant Badruddin was that he had come down in course of the Pakistan war and that he had been falsely impleaded. P. W.6 and P. W.7 also successfully described appellant Badruddin and Islam as Pakistani nationals and the former further described them as brothers of appellant Israful. 17. P. W.6 and P. W.7 also successfully described appellant Badruddin and Islam as Pakistani nationals and the former further described them as brothers of appellant Israful. 17. Another material statement made in this confessional statement is about the looted articles being kept in the house of the appellant Israful. The evidence of P. W.6 and P. W.7 establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that the bag containing some of the looted properties were recovered from the house of appellant Israful, The recovered properties were put on test identification parade and they were identified by P. W.2, P. W.3 and p. W.4 as the properties belonging to the informant which was looted away by the dacoits. It is true that P. W.3 was merely tendered for cross-examination and P. W.4 was declared hostile but we have the evidence of p. W.2 which has been found to be reliable. 18. The statements in exhibit 3 also appear to have been recorded in the language of the confessors themselves. 19. Learned counsel for the State relied upon the case of Maghar Singh v. The State of Punjab, (AIR 1975 SC 1321) wherein it was held that the evidence furnished by the extra-confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence, 20. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that no question having been put either to appellant Masoom of Badruddin about the extra-judicial confession in their examination. Sec.342 Cr. P. C. the same cannot be used against them. Such a question has undoubtedly been put to appellant Israful which he did not specifically deny. The prosecution alleged extra-judicial confession from the very initial Stage of the recording of the fardbeyan exhibit 4 and direct evidence on this point was adduced in course of trial. The appellants were fully aware of this part of the prosecution case and cross examination on their behalf was also directed to this effect. The cross-examination went so far as to suggest that the confessors had not made any such statement. The appellants were fully aware of this part of the prosecution case and cross examination on their behalf was also directed to this effect. The cross-examination went so far as to suggest that the confessors had not made any such statement. It would thus appear that the appellants were aware of the nature of allegations made against them and an elaborate written statement was filed on their behalf where in no objection appears to have been taken as to the non-compliance of the provisions of section 342 Cr. P. C. In these circumstances no prejudice or injustice can be said to have been caused to any of the appellants for omission to put any direct question regarding this extra judicial confession. In the case of labchand V/s. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 183) It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that where the appellant (accused) was fully aware of the nature of the allegations made against him and in addition to giving a detailed explanation, he had also filed an elaborate written statement and had not raised any objection either in trial court of appellate court as to non-compliance of section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, it was held that though the general form of questions, put to accused, did not strictly comply with section 342, Cr. P. C. , he had not suffered any injustice and his conviction was not vitiated. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the contention of the learned counsel has no force and it must fail. 21. The last contention was that the appellant Masoom has not made any confessional statement and exhibit 3 cannot be used against him. This contention is devoid of any merit. Sec.30 of the Evidence Act provides as follows: - "when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession". 22. Reverting back to the cass of appellant Masoom the evidence of p. W.2 showing his participation in the dacpity is reliable and trustworthy. Coupled with it is the statement in exhibit 3, which can be safely relied upon, naming him as one of the dacoits participating in the dacoity. 22. Reverting back to the cass of appellant Masoom the evidence of p. W.2 showing his participation in the dacpity is reliable and trustworthy. Coupled with it is the statement in exhibit 3, which can be safely relied upon, naming him as one of the dacoits participating in the dacoity. The irresistible conclusion therefore is that the charge under section 395 I. P. C. stands well established against appellant Masoom and the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court is, therefore, maintained. 23. Last comes appellant Badruddin. He has been identified as one of the dacoits by P. W.2 the informant. It is true that P. W.2 failed to identify this appellant in the test identification parade, which was held after a considerable delay on 26/7/1971 but as stated above, the evidence furnished in test identification parade is only corroborative in nature. Then again exhibit 8 shows that at the time of the T. I. parade the moustache and beard of all the suspects and grown (Badha hua) which might have stood in the way of P. W.2 identifying this appellant on that occasion. Lastly as this appellant was known to P. W.2 from before the occurrence, the T. I. parade carried no value. In the fardebeyan one of the dacolts participating in the dacoity was described as a Pakistani national related to appellant Israful and residing with him, which fits in with this appellant. Then again, in addition to the evidence of P. W.2 in court, which is reliable we have the extrajudicial confession of appellant Badruddin himself besides the extra-judicial confession of appellant Israful, both of which are voluntary and reliable, showing his participation in the dacoity. 24. All these taken together leave no room for doubt the participation of this appellant in the dacoity and the charge under section 395 I. P. C. framed against him thus stands established beyond all reasonable doubt and he has, thus, rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. 25. No other contention having been raised before this Court, there is no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.