Judgment M. P. Verma, J. 1. This appellant Aziz Bakho alias Aziz Mian was put on trial in Sessions Case No.210 of 1975, in the Court of Shri Ram Bahadur sinha, Sessions Judge. Muzaffarpur on the charges under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 28th May, 1976, recorded an order of acquittal so far as the charge under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, but convicted the appellant of the charge under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, against which the appellant has preferred this appeal from Jail. 2. In short, the prosecution case, as stated, is that in the night of 7th june, 1973, a dacoity was committed in the house of Musai Thakur of village ratnauli, within Kurhani Police Station, Muzaffarpur, and in the commission of the said dacoity, this Musai Thakur and one of his sons Shyam Narain thakur were shot at by some of the dacoits as a result of which they died. The Chaukidar of the village Ramdhari Paswan (P. W.1) lodged information of the aforesaid incident on 8th June, 1973, at about 9 a. m. in the morning, on the basis of which, first information report was drawn up and P. W.13 panjabi Singh, the then Officer Incharge of the aforesaid Police Station, Khurhani took up investigation of the case. So far as this appellant is concerned, he was arrested on 5th July, 1973 in connection with some other case registered under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code by P. W.12 Prahlad prasad Singh, in course of which, search of the house of the appellant was also conducted and the police succeeded in recovering some of the stolen articles said to have been looted away in the aforesaid case of dacoity committed in the house of Musai Thakur. Those stolen articles were put on test identification parade and Kedar Thakur (P. W.4) and Kunti Devi (P. W.6) identified the articles and the Investigating Officer (P. W.13) of the aforesaid case of dacoity prayed for remand of this appellant in the case of dacoity registered as Sadar p. S. Case No.30 dated 29.6.1973 and thus the police submitted charge-sheet against this appellant under sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against this appellant examined 14 witnesses at the trial stage. It does not appear necessary to scrutinise and examine the evidence of each of the witnesses, as I have already stated above that the learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence placed before him recorded the order of acquittal so far as the charge under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned. I am, therefore, to confine myself to the charge under Sec.412 of the Indian Penal Code under which the appellant has been convicted by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel Sri Amresh Kumar Lal appearing for the appellant has raised two points for consideration by this Court. At the earliest stage he contended that the prosecution could not prove affirmatively that the recovery of the alleged stolen articles were from the house belonging to the appellant. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove that this appellant was in exclusive and conscious possession of the articles alleged to have been removed in course of the dacoity committed in the house of deceased Musai Thakur. In this connection, learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of p. W.12 Prahlad Prasad Singh who had conducted the raid and is said to have recovered the stolen articles. It has been elicited in course of examination of this witness that the main entrance door was made of Tatti and he could not say whether it was open at the time he went to the house. This witness further admitted that some persons living in the neighbourhood ran away on his arrival there. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, therefore, contended that the possibility of the materials being planted in the house of the appellant could not be ruled out particularly by those who ran away at the site of the police. The contention of learned counsel though appears very much laudable, cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that this appellant has, in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal procedure, stated that the recovered articles from his house belonged to him. The contention of learned counsel though appears very much laudable, cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that this appellant has, in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal procedure, stated that the recovered articles from his house belonged to him. In this context it will be further important to mention here that according to the prosecution it was the appellant who took the police officer to the place and pointed out the articles which was recovered from his house. So I find that the recovery of the stolen articles was on the pointing of this appellant. The admission of the appellant that the aforesaid articles belonged to him coupled with the fact that the recovery was made on the pointing of this appellant himself leave no room for doubt that he was in exclusive and conscious possession of the articles recovered from the house of the appellant. Thus the only question which now arises for consideration, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant in course of his argument, is whether these articles were the booty of the dacoity committed in the night of the 7th June, 1973 in the house of Musai Thakur or those articles exclusively belonged to the appellant. It will be stated that there is no evidence before this Court to hold that the recovered articles belonged to the appellant except what he stated in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Admittedly all the stolen articles alleged to have been recovered from the house of the appellant were put on test identification parade. A seizure list was prepared at the spot which is Exhibit 2 on the record and it was prepared by P. W.12 himself. It contains the details of the articles recovered from the house of the appellant. A test identification parade was conducted by P. W.10 Kameshwar Pandey, who was then posted as an Anchal Adhikari on 11.8.1973 P. W.4 Kedar Thakur son of the deceased Musai Thakur, in whose house dacoity was committed, along with his sister-in-law Kunti Devi (P. W.6) attended the test identification parade, and identified some of the articles as the articles as belonging to them. P. W.4 has stated that some of the stolen articles picked up at the test identification parade belonged to his wife Mundrika Devi (P. W.7) and some articles belonged to his son. P. W.6 has also stated in court that the articles which she identified at the test identification parade belonged to her Gotni Mundrika Devi (P. W.7 ). It is relevant to mention here that Mundrika Devi had also been examined as P. W.7 in the trial court and although she did not attend the test identification parade but, however, she had identified all those articles as belonging to her. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the finding of the tria court on the ground that the articles a said to have been recovered from the house of the appellant are of general use and there being no specific or particular mark of identification, it would be unsafe to hold that the articles belonged to the prosecution party. I have carefully examined the evidence of P. W.6 on this score. She has stated in the court below that one of the blouse pieces, which she had taken from her Gotni Mundrika Devi accidently had got a burnt hole because of lighting an Agarbatti. The blouse was never sent for washing and was kept intact in a box and the dacoits who raided the house ransacked the house, broke open the boxes and removed Saries, blouses and many other materials Including cash. According to her this blouse piece was also stolen which is the subject-matter of recovery from the house of the appellant and which she identified as one belonging to her Gotni at a test identification parade. Needless to mention, her evidence itself signifies that there was some special mark on one of the stolen clothes on account of which she could easily pick it up at the test identification parade as belonging to the members of her family. I may mention here that the learned Judge in the impugned judgment has rightly discussed the evidence of P. W.7 with regard to the identification of a sari, which has been described as Bihauti sari. It has been stated that generally the females keep such Sari as valuable presentation and in view of the fact that this was in use, it was not difficult for any one of them to identify such a Sari. It has been stated that generally the females keep such Sari as valuable presentation and in view of the fact that this was in use, it was not difficult for any one of them to identify such a Sari. In other words, it may be mentioned here that there could not be any fault in the identification by P. Ws.4, 6 and 7. 7. I have already stated above that 14 witnesses had been examined in this case, P. W.1 is the Chaukidar who has proved the F. I. R. and all other witnesses have come to depose on the point of commission of dacoity and killing of two persons of the house by gun-shot. Since the trial court has already recorded an order of acquittal so far as this appellant is concerned on the charge of commission of dacoity in the house of Musai Thakur, I do not feel essential to discuss the evidence of other witnesses who have come to depose to prove the factum of dacoity and participation of either this appellant or others in the dacoity. Thus, from the circumstances discussed above, it appears beyond any shadow of doubt that this appellant was found in possession of some of the stolen articles said to have been removed in course of the commission of dacoity from the house of Musai Thakur and, in my opinion, the trial court has rightly found him guilty of the charge under section 412 of the Indian penal Code. 8. In my opinion, there is no merit in the appeal and it must be dismissed. But before I part with it, I would like to mention that it has been pointed out by learned counsel, for the appellant that this appellant was taken into custody as far back as on 5.7.1973, and he could not get bail at any stage and continued to remain in jail all through. It has been pointed out that the sentence imposed by the trial court is imprisonment for five years and as laid down under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he will get a set off for the period of detention undergone by this appellant in this case in which he was remanded against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on the conviction recorded by the trial court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.