JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. 1. THIS appeal has been filed by Bishun Pal Singh against the order of Sri S. N. Harkauli, II Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow who had convicted him for the offences under Sections 393, 323/34 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to seven year's, one year's and three year's rigorous imprisonment respectively. But he had ordered all the sentences to run concurrently. 2. THE prosecution story is as follows :- On 31-5-72 Sri C. D. Dixit, Assistant Director, R. D. S. O. Lucknow (PW 2) and his wife Smt. Tara Dixit (PW 1) were going to Kanpur from Lucknow by Delhi-Express. They were in the first class compartment. In their cabin they alone were occupants. There was no other passenger. They were sitting on the lower berths. The light was on in the cabin. After some time of the departure of the train, the Coach attendant came there and they had some talk with him. After some time Sri Dixit took off his bush-shirt and lay on his berth. Smt. Tara Dixit began reading some book. While Sri Dixit was about to sleep, he suddenly heard a sound, "Hands up" and then he saw that three persons had entered in his cabin. One of them kept a pistol on his chest. Sri Dixit thought that this culprit had not overpowered him, though he could do so and so it could be said that the pistol was not a genuine one, so he tried to get up but the culprit pressed the pistol on his chest but he gave a jerk and then all the three culprits began to run away. Sri Dixit followed them. These three persons stood outside the door by catching the handle. In the meanwhile in the cabin itself one of the culprits had given a knife blow to Sri Dixit: He, however noted that fact when he had returned after the chase. At the time he did not see the coach-attendant. It was about 9.05 P. M. He thereafter closed the doors of the cabin. But soon after the passengers of the adjoining cabin came and got him open the doors. Then they learnt about the incident. They got the train stopped at the next station Jaitipur. From there they gave telephonic information to Station Master Unnao and Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow. But soon after the passengers of the adjoining cabin came and got him open the doors. Then they learnt about the incident. They got the train stopped at the next station Jaitipur. From there they gave telephonic information to Station Master Unnao and Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow. When the train reached Unnao Station, the Station Master Sri Jamuna Prasad Tripathi (PW 3) and Sri Beni Singh, Station Officer, G. R. P., Unnao (PW 9) were at the station and they went to the cabin of Sri Dixit. There Sri Dixit handed over the first information report to them. First aid was also given to Sri Dixit. Sri Beni Singh Station Officer found the torn reservation-chart and the 'Jhola' of the Coach- attendant Munna Lal but the coach- attendant was not traceable. 3. ON the other side getting information at the Lucknow Station, Sri G. P. Saxena was asked to search for the Coach-attendant Munna Lal So he left at about 12 a. m. on a light engine. He found the dead body of Munna Lal cut in several pieces a little before Amausi Railway Station. He also found dead body of a stranger sat some distance from there. 4. PAPERS had been sent from G.R.P. Police Station Unnao to G.R.P. Police Station, Lucknow as the offence was said to have been committed within its jurisdiction. Sri R. P. Gupta, S. I., GRP started investigation. He prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-3) etc. documents for this purpose. The other S. L, Sri Jagdish Prasad Misra (PW 6) prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the stranger the next day con 1-6-72 at 10-30 a. m. Both the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The police continued to patrol the railway line. In the morning of next day, i.e., on 1-6-72 the police found the appellant hidden behind the shrubs near the Railway Pole No. 26/11. He had injuries on his person. He was at once arrested and made 'baparda'. At 3.50 P. M. he was sent to G. R. P. Police Station, Lucknow. Next day he was medically examined and then sent to jail and there he was put up for identification test. He was identified by Smt. Dixit alone correctly. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against him. He was at once arrested and made 'baparda'. At 3.50 P. M. he was sent to G. R. P. Police Station, Lucknow. Next day he was medically examined and then sent to jail and there he was put up for identification test. He was identified by Smt. Dixit alone correctly. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against him. Besides the above mentioned charges the appellant was also charged for the offence of committing murder of the coach- attendant. The appellant had denied to have committed the offences and stated that he had been implicated due to enmity. He also said that in identification parade he was not being identified but in the second round on the prompting of the Assistant Police Prosecutor, Smt. Tara Dixit put her hand on him. He was also alleged to have been shown at the police station. 5. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept this part of the prosecution case that the appellant had committed the murder of Munna Lal but has accepted its case that the person who robbed and tried to commit murder of Sri Dixit and who caused injury to him in his attempt to commit his murder was the appellant. He held this fact on the identification of Smt. Tara Dixit as well as on the circumstances that the appellant having been found in an injured condition on the Railway line near about the place of the incident and thus he was convicted under the above offences. 6. IN appeal an emphasis has been laid on the fact that neither Smt. Dixit was in a position to identify nor was her solitary identification sufficient to prove the offence. The fact which is said to have corroborated the identification was not such that it could be a cause for that incident itself. The first question in this appeal is whether Smt. Tara Dixit had such an opportunity that she could see the faces of the robbers. On this point there are only statements of Smt. Tara Dixit (PW 1) and Sri Dixit (PW 2). They have stated that at that time there was electric light inside the cabin and as they had to go only up to Kanpur, there was no question of their sleeping. This is why they had also kept open the doors of the cabin. They have stated that at that time there was electric light inside the cabin and as they had to go only up to Kanpur, there was no question of their sleeping. This is why they had also kept open the doors of the cabin. Therefore, when there was light inside the cabin, it is clear that they both could see the faces of the robbers. 7. THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that Smt. Dixit had stated that she could see well only the face of one of the robbers and had not seen the faces of two others. This appears to be strange for when there was light available for all, she must have seen the faces of all of them, but Smt. Dixit was not questioned on this point as to how she could only see the face of only one of the robbers. It may be that the robber who had put the pistol on the chest of Sri Dixit might have gone a bit ahead and his second companion might be also near him and they might be in a position that their faces could not be seen by Dixit. It is true that Smt. Dixit had not given a statement before the Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade, that she had come to identify the person who had knife in his hand. But this was not necessary. She had come to identify all the culprits and, therefore, she had given such a statement before the Magistrate. 8. THE learned counsel for the appellant then contends that Sri Dixit could not identify the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be accepted in the case of Smt. Dixit that she could also see his face. But there was a difference in the position of both these persons. Sri Dixit was lying and his attention was towards the person who was putting his pistol on his chest. The appellant was behind him and another companion. Therefore, he might not give his attention towards the appellant. He might have seen him only when he was running and it might not be such that he could identify him correctly. Therefore, this could also not be a reason to discredit the identification of Smt. Tara Dixit. The appellant was behind him and another companion. Therefore, he might not give his attention towards the appellant. He might have seen him only when he was running and it might not be such that he could identify him correctly. Therefore, this could also not be a reason to discredit the identification of Smt. Tara Dixit. The appellant had also complained that actually Smt. Dixit also could not identify him and that she could do so only in the second round on the prompting of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. But this complaint of the appellant is baseless. No such question was put to the identification Magistrate Sri R. C. Pandey (PW 18) in cross-examination that the appellant was identified on the prompting of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Further, from the identification memo it appears that the appellant's counsel was also present at the time of identification and had also signed it. If such a thing would have happened he would have certainly complained to the Magistrate. 9. IT has also been said on behalf of the appellant that actually he was kept at the police station for two days and was shown to the witnesses there and his photo was also taken. Had it been so, he would have been surely identified by Sri Dixit as well as another person. Out of three only one identified the appellant. This makes it clear that the police had not taken any step in this connection. 13a. One more objection has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant about identification. He says that 12 chits were pasted on the face of the appellant and as such the identification became valueless. For this he relied on Asharfi v. State, 1960 AWR 440, wherein it is mentioned that if more than 10 chits were pasted on the face of an accused, it would not lead to correct identification as almost the whole face would be full of chits. This objection of the appellant is also not correct. In the first instance this was a general view about identification. It was not a disputed question. Secondly, the real question was whether the chits were really so many that the face could not be identified. In the identification memo (Ex. Ka. 23) 12. distinctive signs on the face of the appellant were shown. In the first instance this was a general view about identification. It was not a disputed question. Secondly, the real question was whether the chits were really so many that the face could not be identified. In the identification memo (Ex. Ka. 23) 12. distinctive signs on the face of the appellant were shown. Out of them sign No. 8 was on the left side of the neck. It has thus, nothing to do with the make up of the face. Signs Nos. 7 and 12 are on the chin. They also did not cover the face. Signs Nos. 2 and 3 are near the hair on the forehead. Sign No. 4 is above the left eye-brow. Thus from these signs make up of the face is not covered. In any case signs Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 12 are such which do not cover the face in any way. Therefore, there remain only 7 or 8 signs. Thus, Asharfi's case also does not help the appellant and the identification is good. 10. IN the last objection it has been said on behalf of the appellant that this identification was held after about three months and, therefore, this identification could not be regarded of any value. But no rule can be said in this connection. The appellant was arrested on 1-6-72. He was sent to jail on 2-6 -72 and the identification was held on 2-9-72. Thus, there could be no possibility of the appellant being identified by any wrong means nor was any such allegation been made on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the identification could not be said to be wrong on this account as well. Thus, the identification of Smt. Tara Devi was correct. The other important question is whether one identification alone would be enough for a finding of guilt. Normally where there is evidence of only identification, at least two correct identifications are regarded as necessary. But this is not a law. It is only a method of prudence. In one identification there may be a mistake or it may be done accidently. Hence to rule out such possibility at least two identification is (sic) of such a person and in such circumstances that it is wholly reliable, there is no reason as to why it may not be relied upon. Here Smt. Tara Devi Dixit is wife of a high Officer. Hence to rule out such possibility at least two identification is (sic) of such a person and in such circumstances that it is wholly reliable, there is no reason as to why it may not be relied upon. Here Smt. Tara Devi Dixit is wife of a high Officer. At the time when the incident took place it was only 9 p. m. which is normally not a sleeping time. At least two or three minutes must have been available in this incident and thus Smt. Dixit had got a good opportunity to see the appellant. 11. THEN there were only two persons in the cabin, she and her husband. Out of them Sri Dixit could not identify the appellant because, as said above, his attention was on the other robbers one of whom had put a pistol on his chest. Therefore, reliance could be placed on the identification of Smt. Tara Devi. But actually it is not a case of only one identification evidence against the appellant. Besides this identification, there are certain other corroborative facts. Near about the place, where the incident took place, the appellant was found concealed in an injured condition behind the bushes near the Railway track. According to the prosecution case, the three robbers having failed in their attempt to rob got out of the compartment and jumped. There the dead body of one stranger and of the coach-attendant were also recovered. This makes it clear that the appellant was one of those who had tried to get down of the moving train. The appellant was medically examined on 2-6-72 at 9-50 a.m. by Dr. Bhatnagar in Balrampur Hospital. He found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Multiple irregular abrasions in an area of 6 cm. x 3 cm. on the right temple. 2. Multiple irregular abrasions in an area of 10 c.m.x 5 cm. on the front of right shoulder. 3. Multiple irregular abraded bruises in an area of 12 c.m.x 4 cm. on the back of the chest left side lower half. 4. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the palm of right hand upper part. 5. Abrasion 3 c.m.x 1.5 cm. on the left palm upper part. 6. Multiple irregular abrasions in an area of 6 cm. x 5 cm. on front of right knee joint. 7. Multiple abrasions in an area of 9 c.m.x 2 cm. 4. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the palm of right hand upper part. 5. Abrasion 3 c.m.x 1.5 cm. on the left palm upper part. 6. Multiple irregular abrasions in an area of 6 cm. x 5 cm. on front of right knee joint. 7. Multiple abrasions in an area of 9 c.m.x 2 cm. on the inner side of left foot at the root of the toe. All the abrasions were scabbed. 12. IN the opinion of the Doctor if somebody falls down from the moving train, these injuries could be received and that they could be received on the night of 31-5-1972. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is possible that the appellant might have sat in the train without ticket and due to the apprehension that he might not lie checked he could jump from the train, and thus, it was not necessary that he must be one of the robbers. This argument is not correct. This appellant had not given any explanation as to how he received these injuries and how he was found in an injured condition near the Rly. line. Therefore, such possibility cannot be looked into on the basis of imaginary circumstances but a part from this, it is also not probable. This was a Delhi-Express train which stops at Unnao after leaving Lucknow and not on intermediary stations, There was also no checking. Therefore, there was no question of jumping down for fear of any checking. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that it might be possible that the appellant might be inside railway compartment and might not have entered inside the cabin. But from the statement of Smt. Tara Dixit (PW 1) and Sri C. D. Dixit (PW 2) it is clear that these three persons were in the compartment and those three persons alone got out of the compartment and hung on the handle of the door. No other person was visible at that time. Therefore, the circumstances in which the appellant was found injured near the Railway line corroborates the fast that he was one of the robbers. Hence there is not only one identification against the appellant but the value of the identification is strengthened by this corroborative circumstance and as such the appellant was rightly held guilty on this evidence. 13. ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed. Hence there is not only one identification against the appellant but the value of the identification is strengthened by this corroborative circumstance and as such the appellant was rightly held guilty on this evidence. 13. ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He may be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow will report compliance of this order within six weeks. Appeal dismissed.