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 Suraj Singh was further charged under section 397 of the India Penal Code. One of the accused, namely Gaurishanker, absconded during the trial. The present appellants were found guilty under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months each. Besides these appellants, accused Sonpal and Hargovind were also convicted and sentenced similarly. However, accused Sonpal and Hargovind did not appear to have filed any appeal. 2. Short facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals were that on 10-6-1975, Rajaram (P.W.1) had gone to village Rewai to bring back Hareubai (P.W.2) who was the wife of his cousin when they were coming back to their village Khaniadhana from Rewai they passed through village Sakuli forest at about 4.00 in the evening they came across 5 miscreants. One of them was armed with pharsa while the others with lathis. They attacked these prosecution witnesses with their weapons, causing injuries on the person of Rajaram and forcibly looted silver ornaments, viz. Paijna (Art A) and Kardhoni (Art. 3) and also one Lalari (Art. C) from the person of Harkubai (P.W.2). After the departure of the miscreants, report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Rajaram (P.W.1) in Basai Thana, which was recorded by investigating Officer Chandrakant Tiwari (P.W.11). Injuries on the person of Rajaram (P.W.1) were examined by Dr. H.K. Pastor (P.W.7). During the course of investigation, the five accused, including the appellants, were arrested. They were put to test identification. At the instance of the present appellants and also the other two convicted accused, looted property was recovered. The same was identified in test identification and also in Court. 3. The appellants denied to have committed the offences and contended that they have been falsely implicated. Held : In appeal argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the test identification of appellant Suraj Singh was delayed, while the other appellant Nanna Rajju was not identified by Rajaram (P.W.1) and Harkubai (P.W.2). Ragarding the identification of the recovered property, the contention is that the same were of common use, sufficient number of similar kind of articles were not mixed and therefore there was no identification of the said articles. 4. Ragarding the identification of the recovered property, the contention is that the same were of common use, sufficient number of similar kind of articles were not mixed and therefore there was no identification of the said articles. 4. Test identification of the accused, included the appellants, was conducted by Baburam Shrivastava (P.W.10) on 7-7-1975. The appellants were arrested on 24-6-1975. In the test identification memo (Ex.P/2) appellant Surajsingh was identified by Rajaram (P.W.1) while the other appellant Nanna Rajju was not identified by either Rajaram, (P.W.1) or Harkubai (P.W.2). The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants Surajsingh is that his test identification was inordinately delayed. In this connection there is no cross-examination of investigating officer Chandrakant Tiwari (P.W.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 unreliable. It is further worthy of note that Rajaram (P.W.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 (P.W.2) while she along with Rajaram (P.W.1) was passing through the forest at about 4.00 in the evening. 5. Besides the evidence of identification of person, there is the evidence of recovery against these appellants. While in custody appellant Suraj Singh gave information to the investing officer in presence of witnesses which was reduced to writing as per memorandum (Ex.P/16). The appellant then took the investigating officer and the witnesses to his house and brought out the silver Kardhoni (Art B) from inside the Busora. The same was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P/17. The appellant Nanne Rajju also, while in custody, gave information Ex.P/10 on the basis of which he recovered silver Painjna (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. 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 state, 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 (P.W.9), on 14-7-1975 at Basai Panchayat house. These ornaments Arts. A and B were duly identified by Harkubai (P.W.2). Rajaram (P.W.1) at first said that he was not called by the police for identification but soon after recollected that these articles were put to identification at Basai Panchyat Bhawan, where he identified the same. Besides these witnesses, these ornaments were identified by Harilal (P.W.3), who is father-in-law of Harkubai. He also stated that these ornaments were given to Harkubai (P.W.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 there were 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 about 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 fact 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. 6. It is proved that in the test identification only Surajsingh was identified 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. 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 India Penal Code, has been established against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal dismissed.