Short Note : Five accused, including the present appellants were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Datia, for offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Surajsingh was further charged under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused namely, Gourishankar, absconded during the trial. The present appellants were found guilty under section 395 of the India Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 18 months each. Besides these appellants, accused Senpal and Hargovind were also convicted and sentenced similarly. However accused Senpal and Hargovind did not appear to have filed any appeal. 2. Held; The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Surajsingh is that his test identification was inordinately delayed. In this connection, there is no cross-examination of investigating officer Chandrakant Tiwari (PW 10) regarding the delay: So, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants after arrest were kept in such a way as can be seen by the witnesses before sending of the accused persons for test identification. Regarding the test identification itself no material infirmities were brought out as to render the same un-reliable. It is further worthy of note that Rajaram (PW 1) has identified the appellant Surajsingh in Court also: Consequently, there is no escape for appellant Surajsingh from being held that he was one of the dacoits, who looted the ornaments of Harkubai (PW 2), while she along with Rajaram (P.W, 1) was passing through the forest at about 4.00 in the evening. 3. Besides the evidence of identifications of persons, there is the evidence of recovery against' these appellants. While in custody, appellant Surajsingh gave information to the investigating officer in presence of witnesses, which was reduced to writing as per memorandum (Ex. P/16). The appellant then the investigating officer and the witnesses to his house and brought out the took silver Kardhoni (Art. B) from inside the Busora. The same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/17. The appellant Naenn Rajju also while in custody, gave information Ex. P/10 on the basis of which he recovered silver Painjan (Art. A) from his house. The same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P./2 in presence of witnesses. The same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/17. The appellant Naenn Rajju also while in custody, gave information Ex. P/10 on the basis of which he recovered silver Painjan (Art. A) from his house. The same was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P./2 in presence of witnesses. On scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses and the recovery documents, it is clearly established that the appellants had kept these ornaments in concealment in their houses, and they had exclusive knowledge of the same. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that in the first-information report (Ex. P/1), details of these articles were given. These articles were put to test identification under the supervision of Sukhnandan Jain (PW 9) on 14-7-1975 at Basai Panchayat house. These ornaments Arts. A and B were duly identified by Harkubai (PW 2). Rajaram (PW 1) at first said that he was not called by the police fur identification, but soon after recollected that these articles were put to identification at Basai Panchayat Bhawan, where he identified the same. Besides these witnesses, these ornaments were identified by Harilal (PW 3), who is father-in-law of Harkubai. He has stated that there ornaments were given to Harkubai (PW 2) at the time of her marriage. Harkubai in her deposition has stated that she had been wearing these ornaments since long and is able to identify the same clearly. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that these articles were of common use and bear no special mark of identification on them, in the circumstances of the case, has no substance. The person, who has been wearing the ornament on her person since long, is able to identify the same without there being a special mark of identification; so also, there is no substance in the contention that these articles were of common use. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record there does not appear to be any force in the argument that sufficient number of articles of similar kind were not mixed in the ornaments in the test identification. 4. It is proved that in the test identification only Surajsingh was identifide and besides the property recovered at his instance was also identified. While the other appellant Nanne Rajju was not identified. 4. It is proved that in the test identification only Surajsingh was identifide and besides the property recovered at his instance was also identified. While the other appellant Nanne Rajju was not identified. Even so the property recovered at his instance was duly identified as the same, which was looted in the incident. A presumption under section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act can rightly be drawn that this appellant Nanne Rajju was one of the dacoits. Consequently, the conviction of both the appellants, on reappraisal of the evidence on record and agreeing with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, has been established against both the appellants beyond resonable doubt. Appeal dismissed.