JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, dated 30-9-80 convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 395 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. A gang of five Badmashes which was armed with firearms looted some groups of pilgrims on 29-5-78 between 10.30 A.M. and 5 P.M. at a distance of 4 or 5 kilo metres from the temple of Neelkanth Mahadeo when the latter were returning from the temple to Rishikesh, within police station Laxman Jhoola, district Pauri Garhwal. The group consisting of Umesh Kumar Varma, his wife, mother, married sister, her husband and other persons reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 A.M. on its way to Rishikesh and was looted by the aforesaid gang and was relieved of cash and ornaments. Some members of the group were also manhandled. After looting this group, the miscreants took it to a Khai which was about 25 paces below, and compelled it to sit down there under threats of shooting, two miscreants kept guard on this group. At about 2.30 P.M. another group consisting of Sanjay Kumar Saxena and others happened to reach the scene of occurrence and was looted by the gang. This group was also taken to the Khai and was made to sit there. Two more groups of pilgrims consisting of ten persons and a guide Dili Ram (PW 8), reached the scene of occurrence at about 5 P.M. The members of these groups were also relieved of their ornaments and cash. The guide was also relieved of Rs. 15/- which were in his pocket. Both these groups were also taken to the Khai and made to sit there. Group of one Magan Lal resident of Calcutta also chanced to arrive at the scene of occurrence and was relieved of cash and a wrist watch and made to sit in the Khai. The miscreants threatened all the pilgrims and ordered them to remain sitting till they (miscreants) had left the scene by motor vehicle. The terrified pilgrims remained sitting in the Khai till about 6 P.M. when they heard the sound of a motor vehicle going away from the place of occurrence. The miscreants threatened all the pilgrims and ordered them to remain sitting till they (miscreants) had left the scene by motor vehicle. The terrified pilgrims remained sitting in the Khai till about 6 P.M. when they heard the sound of a motor vehicle going away from the place of occurrence. The pilgrims concluded that the miscreants had left and thereafter they proceeded towards Rishikesh and came to Swargashram at about 8 P.M. Umesh Kumar Varma wrote down the report of the occurrence and noted in it details of the ornaments, cash and other articles which were looted from various groups. This report was submitted at police station Laxman Jhoola, the same night at 11.30 P.M. Shri Man Singh (PW 17), Station Officer, police station Laxman Jhoola, started investigation of the case. He interrogated Umesh Kumar, Dili Ram, Smt.Uma Burman, Smt.Kamlesh Tandon and others. He continued the investigation till 6-8-1978 when he was transferred from the police station. His successor Hari Ram Singh (PW 19) took up investigation of this case. 3. On 12-11-1978 at about 5 P.M. Inspector Om Prakash. (PW 4) of Criminal Investigation Agency staff, was on patrol duty in the town of Hoshiarpur (Punjab State). Sub-Inspector Ujagar Singh (PW 18), Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurumej Singh (PW 10) and some other police officials were with him. This party came near a by pass and took a turn towards Tanda. At that time one Keemti Lal (PW 1) was also passing that way. The police party saw two persons coming on a bicycle. The movements of those persons created a suspicion in the mind of Inspector Om Prakash and he stopped them and asked them to show papers concerning the cycle. When those persons were unable to produce the papers, the Inspector took the cycle in his custody and interrogated them. Those persons were Laxman Das, the present appellant, and one Gurdeo Singh. The interrogation of Laxman Das revealed his complicity in a number of cases including the aforesaid dacoity case which had taken place on 29-5-78. Laxman Das and his companions were arrested and made Bapurdah and were brought to police station Sadar Bazar Hoshiyarpur. The arrested persons were produced before the Magistrate on 13-11-1978 and thereafter detained in the Lock-up at police station Sadar Bazar. Laxman Das appellant offered to point out the shops where looted ornaments of the aforesaid dacoity were disposed of. Laxman Das and his companions were arrested and made Bapurdah and were brought to police station Sadar Bazar Hoshiyarpur. The arrested persons were produced before the Magistrate on 13-11-1978 and thereafter detained in the Lock-up at police station Sadar Bazar. Laxman Das appellant offered to point out the shops where looted ornaments of the aforesaid dacoity were disposed of. It appears that one Shiv Prasad was arrested on 13-11-78 and his interrogation revealed his complicity in the aforesaid dacoity case. On 16-11-78 both Laxman Das and Shiv Prasad took Sub-Inspector Ujagar Singh (PW 18) and witness Keemti Lal (PW 1) to the shops where looted ornaments had been disposed of. First, these arrested persons took Ujagar Singh and the witness to the shop of Ravindra Kumar (PW 2) in Dibbi Bazar, Hoshiyarpur. Ravindra Kumar handed over two gold rings, one gold chain, one pair of gold tops, one gold om patra and one pair of silver Paizeb (Exs 3 to 8) to the Sub-Inspector who prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka. 12. This shop-keeper also produced entry (Ex. Ka. 3) of sale of these ornaments in his Bahikhata (Ex. 10.) The entry bore the thumb-mark of Laxman Das. The recovered ornaments were made into a sealed bundle. Thereafter, the two arrested persons took the Sub-Inspector and the witness to the shop of Vijai Kumar (PW 3) in Pratap Bazar, Hoshiyarpur. Vijai Kumar produced seven gold bangles. He also produced his Bahi Ex. 11 in which there was entry Ex. Ka. 4 about the sale of the bangles to him and which bore the thumb-mark of Laxman Das. The Sub-Inspector prepared recovery memo Ex. Ka. 13 and put the recovered bangles in a sealed bundle. 4. Ramesh Chandra Gautam (PW 11) Sub-Inspector, police station Laxman Jhoola, went to Hoshiyarpur and brought Laxman Das appellant and Shiv Prasad alias Bhola from Hoshiyarpur jail to District Jail, Pauri under parda. The two accused were taken out of Hoshiyarpur jail on 27-4-79 and admitted in the jail at Pauri on 29-4-79. These accused were kept in the lock-up of police station Kotdwar on the night of 28-4-79. The identification of the person of Laxman Das was held in the district jail, Pauri on 28-7-79 by Shri J.S. Negi, ASDM (PW 15). This officer also held identification proceedings of the recovered ornaments on 30-7-79. These accused were kept in the lock-up of police station Kotdwar on the night of 28-4-79. The identification of the person of Laxman Das was held in the district jail, Pauri on 28-7-79 by Shri J.S. Negi, ASDM (PW 15). This officer also held identification proceedings of the recovered ornaments on 30-7-79. Sri R.P. Misra, Magistrate also held identification proceedings of the recovered ornaments on 23-11-79 by some witnesses who were unable to attend on 30-7-79. 5. The investigation of this case remained from 6-1-1979 till 30-6-79 with Raj Singh Yadava of CID CB Thereafter the investigation was again handed over to Shri Hari Ram Singh, Station Officer, police station Laxman Jhoola (PW 19). This witness interrogated Inspector Om Prakash, Sub-Inspector Ujagar Singh, Keemti Lal, Ravindra Kumar and others. After receipt of the result of identification proceedings, the Investigating Officer completed investigation and submitted charge-sheets against Laxman Das and Shiv Prasad. 6. Both the accused denied participation in the dacoity. Laxman Das denied recovery of ornaments at his instance. He contended that his photograph was taken at Hoshiyarpur and He was shown to the witnesses at Hoshiyarpur and police station Kotdwar. This accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. It appears that this accused was unable to engage a counsel for himself and was, therefore, provided with a counsel for his defence at State expense. The learned trial Judge acquitted Shiv Prasad because the evidence against him was not sufficient. He found the evidence of identification of person and property sufficient against Laxman Das, and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 7. The fact that a gang of five miscreants had looted several groups of pilgrims on 29-5-1978 between 10.30 A.M. and 5 P.M. on the way leading from the temple of Neelkanth Mahadeo to Rishikesh and relieved the victims of gold and silver ornaments, cash and other articles, has not been challenged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. This aspect of the prosecution case stands fully proved by the statements of Smt.Uma Devi (PW 5), Sanjeev Kumar Burman (PW 6), Umesh Kumar Varma, complainant (PW 7), Dili Ram (PW 8), Kumari Ritu Burman (PW 12), Smt.Kamlesh Tandon (PW 13) and Shankar Nath Tandon (PW 14). These witnesses were not cross-examined on this aspect of the case. This aspect of the prosecution case stands fully proved by the statements of Smt.Uma Devi (PW 5), Sanjeev Kumar Burman (PW 6), Umesh Kumar Varma, complainant (PW 7), Dili Ram (PW 8), Kumari Ritu Burman (PW 12), Smt.Kamlesh Tandon (PW 13) and Shankar Nath Tandon (PW 14). These witnesses were not cross-examined on this aspect of the case. Their statements go to show that the miscreants were five in number and they had taken part in looting the pilgrims and in keeping them detained in the Khai. 8. The evidence against the appellant is of two kinds. First of identification of his person by Dili Ram, guide (PW 8). Second of recovery of seven items of looted gold and silver ornaments from the shops of Ravindra Kumar and Vijai Kumar (PWs) at the instance of the appellant. Three witnesses Smt.Uma Burman, Sanjeev Kumar Burman and Dili Ram had correctly identified the present appellant in the test identification parade held in district jail, Pauri on 28-7-79. These three witnesses also correctly identified the appellant at the time of trial and stated that he was one of the dacoits who had looted them and other pilgrims. The performance of Smt.Uma Burman and Sanjeev Kumar Burman in the test identification parade of another suspect was not good and they had committed mistakes and, therefore, the learned trial Judge did not consider it safe to rely on the identification evidence given by these two witnesses. The performance of Dili Ram did not suffer from such infirmity and, therefore, his identification evidence was accepted as correct. 9. This identification evidence has been assailed before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has urged that the appellant was kept in the police lock-up of police station Sadar Bazar Hoshiyarpur from the evening of 12-11-78 up to 16-11-78 and was not kept Bapurda during this period. S. I. Ujagar Singh (PW 18) admitted that the appellant was not kept under parda from 13-11-78 till he was sent to jail after 16-11-78. The complicity of the appellant in the dacoity in question had come to the knowledge of the police of Hoshiyarpur on 12-11-78 itself. S. I. Ujagar Singh (PW 18) admitted that the appellant was not kept under parda from 13-11-78 till he was sent to jail after 16-11-78. The complicity of the appellant in the dacoity in question had come to the knowledge of the police of Hoshiyarpur on 12-11-78 itself. The police of Hoshiyarpur could utilize the time up to 16-11-78 to show the appellant to the witnesses of this case and keeping the appellant without parda made it easy for the police to show him (appellant) to the witnesses of this case. He has also pointed out that it was the case of the appellant that he was shown to the witnesses of this case at police station Sadar Bazar Hoshiyarpur. The learned counsel has further urged that keeping of the appellant in the lock up of police station Kotdwar on the night of 28-4-79 was deliberate and the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case at Kotdwar. In this connection he has pointed out that the relevant general diary reports of police station Kotdwar were not produced by the prosecution to show that the appellant was in fact kept under parda at that police station. In the absence of those reports the bald statement of Ramesh Chandra Gautam(PW 11) who had escorted the appellant, that the appellant was kept under parda at police station Kotdwar as well, was not worthy of acceptance. The learned counsel has assailed the result of test identification parade on the ground of delay in holding test identification parade of the appellant. He has urged that the parade was held 14 months after the occurrence; on account of passage of such a long interval the witnesses could not have remembered the features of the miscreants. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on some observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, made in the decision in Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar; 1981 Crl. Appeal Reports 301 (S.C.) = AIR 1981 SC 1392 . 10. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. The evidence of identification given by a witness in court to the effect that the accused in dock was the person who had taken part in the commission of crime, is the substantive evidence against the accused. 10. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. The evidence of identification given by a witness in court to the effect that the accused in dock was the person who had taken part in the commission of crime, is the substantive evidence against the accused. It is as a safe rule of prudence that the court generally looks; for corroboration of the sworn testimony of the witness in court as to the identity of the accused who is a stranger to him. That corroborative evidence may come from various circumstantial factors; one of them being the evidence of test identification where the witness picks out the accused from amongst the number of persons with whom he is mixed up. The test identification would become meaningless and lose all its significance if the accused has been shown to the witnesses or the witnesses have had an opportunity of seeing him prior to the test identification; therefore, it becomes necessary that every precaution should be taken against the witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the accused prior to the test identification parade. This has led to the practice of keeping a suspect under parda from the time of his arrest till the time of holding the test identification parde. Thus, the practice of keeping a suspect under parda is a part of the aforementioned rule of prudence and its main object is that the witnesses do not have an opportunity to see the suspect before the holding of test identification parade. The formula that a suspect has been kept Bapardah may lose its real importance if there is a dishonest police officer who is bent upon showing the suspect to the witnesses or there is a dishonest witness who is keen to see the suspect prior to the test identification. What is, therefore, crucial, is that the suspect is not in fact shown to the witnesses or that) the witnesses have no opportunity to see the suspect before the holding of the test identification parade. Where the identifying witnesses are present in the locality, the need to take every precaution against the witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the suspect, and therefore, keeping the suspect under parda, is great. Where the identifying witnesses are present in the locality, the need to take every precaution against the witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the suspect, and therefore, keeping the suspect under parda, is great. In a case, where on account of its peculiar facts and circumstances, it is obvious that the suspect would not be shown to the witnesses and that the witnesses too could not have an opportunity of seeing the suspect, failure to observe the practice of keeping the accused under Parda may not render the test identification useless. In this connection, reference may be made to the following observations made by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the decision State of Rajasthan v. Ranjita, AIR 1962 Rajasthan 78 (FB). Their Lordahips observed:- "In our opinion, therefore, it would be going too far to suggest that all that precaution of Bapurdah with corresponding routine entries in the police diary or in the jail warrant are absolutely essential. All that is necessary is to see whether there is anything on the record to indicate that the accused had been cither deliberately shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade or that the witnesses had an opportunity of seeing the :accused and being pointed out their identity before the test identification. If there is any such identification on the record and the Investigating Authorities have taken no precaution against it, then alone no value should be attached to the test identification." 11. This Full Bench decision was noticed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision Ram Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1204 , with approval. 12. The objections of the learned counsel for the appellant to the test identification may be examined in the light of the above principles. The learned counsel has urged, though half-heartealy, that the detention of the appellant in the lock-up of the police station from 13th to 16th November, 1978 was illegal. According to him during this period the appellant should have been lodged in jail. In this connection he: has referred to observation of the learned trial Judge that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on the day following his arrest presumably to get the orders of the Magistrate for lodging him in prison. According to him during this period the appellant should have been lodged in jail. In this connection he: has referred to observation of the learned trial Judge that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on the day following his arrest presumably to get the orders of the Magistrate for lodging him in prison. The criticism of the learned counsel is not well founded and even the observation made by the learned trial Judge was, in my opinion, not well founded. Not a question was put either by the defence or by the learned trial Judge to S.I. Ujagar Singh (PW 18) to explain why the appellant was kept in the lockup of the police station after obtaining remand on 13-11-78. The Magistrate could legally grant remand for police custody. It will be only a surmise to say that the remand granted by the Magistrate on 13-11-79 was for detaining the appellant in jail custody and the CIA Police had detained the appellant in the lock up of police station Sadar Bazar in contravention of that order. 13. The appellant did not dispute seriously the fact that he was arrested by the police on 12-11-78 at 5 P.M., he did not aver that he was arrested elsewhere but was wrongly shown to have been arrested as contended by the prosecution. Three police officers, namely, Inspector Om Prakash, S.I. Ujagar Singh and A.S.I. Gurmej Singh stated that the appellant was made Bapardah soon after his arrest and was taken to the police station under parda. This part of their statements too was not seriously challenged on behalf of the appellant. S.I. Ujagar Singh added that the appellant refused before the Magistrate to get himself put up for identification and, therefore, was not kept under parda from 13-11-78 till 16-11-78, when he was detained in the lockup of police station Sadar Bazar. The question is whether this circumstance is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case or the witnesses had an opportunity to see him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I am unable to conclude that the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case or that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the appellant in the lock up. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I am unable to conclude that the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case or that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the appellant in the lock up. It is true that the police had come to know about the complicity of the appellant in the dacoity in question on the evening of 12-11-78 itself, but this is not enough to infer that the police of police station Laxman Jhoola and the witnesses of this case had come to know about the arrest of the appellant prior to 16-11-78. There is nothing on record to show that the police of police station Laxman Jhoola had received information of the arrest of the appellant soon after 12-11-78 or prior to 16-11-78. The Investigating Officer who should have given this information in his statements, remained silent on this point. The learned counsel for the appellant did not put any question to the Investigating Officer on this point. Merely because this point was not gone into at the time of trial, it cannot be presumed that the police of police station Laxman Jhoola had received this information soon after 12-11-78. The witnesses of this case were mostly pilgrims belonging to the districts of Moradabad, Bareilly and Aligarh. Only Dili Ram (PW 8) was a resident of Swargashram. He was a guide and going out with pilgrims. None of these witnesses could be collected and taken to Hoshiyarpur by 16-11-78 to see the appellant. Though Sub-Inspector Ujagar Singh stated that the appellant was not kept under parda from 13-11-78 onwards, he flatly denied the defence suggestion that the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case at Hoshiyarpur or that his photograph was taken. Other police officers also denied such defence suggestion. The witnesses who identified the appellant in test identification parade also denied the defence suggestion that the appellant, was shown to them at Hoshiyarpur before the test identification. The witnesses had no reason to make a false statement, they were strangers to the appellant and were also not under the influence of the police in any way. They belonged to respectable families. Their denial deserves acceptance. Thus, the entire material on the record convincingly proves that the appellant was not shown to the witnesses of this case while he was detained at Hoshiyarpur. They belonged to respectable families. Their denial deserves acceptance. Thus, the entire material on the record convincingly proves that the appellant was not shown to the witnesses of this case while he was detained at Hoshiyarpur. The witnesses too had no opportunity to see the appellant there, because they were not living at Hoshiyarpur, they were residents of distant places where from they could not reach Hoshiyarpur easily. 14. Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chandra Gautam (PW 11) was sent to Hoshiyarpur jail to bring the appellant from there to jail at Pauri under parda. The appellant was handed over to this witness under parda on 27-4-79. He reached Kotdwar on 28-4-79 and kept the appellant in the lock up of police station Kotdwar for the night. The next day he took the appellant from police station Kotdwar to Pauri jail and lodged him in the jail under parda. The witness stated that the appellant was kept under parda from the time he was taken out from Hoshiyarpur jail till he was admitted in Pauri jail. The witness added that the appellant was kept under parda in the lock-up of police station Kotdwar. He denied that the appellant was shown to the witnesses of this case at Hoshiyarpur or Kotdwar or that the photograph of the appellant was taken. The statement of this witness has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the various general diary reports showing that the appellant was kept under parda, were not produced and proved by the provision. The evidence of SI R.C. Gautam (PW 11) cannot be rejected on this ground. In the Full Bench decision State of Rajasthan v. Ranjita, (supra) it was held that, "It is not necessary that entry should be made in the various police records the precautions that were taken for keeping the accused persons Bapurdah while under the police custody." The presence or absence of entries in the general diary regarding keeping the accused under parda is by itself of little consequence. What is of importance is to see if in fact the accused was kept under parda (in a case where such precaution is regarded as essential) and the evidence given to establish this fact is worthy of reliance. The evidence given at the time of trial to prove this fact is the substantive evidence. What is of importance is to see if in fact the accused was kept under parda (in a case where such precaution is regarded as essential) and the evidence given to establish this fact is worthy of reliance. The evidence given at the time of trial to prove this fact is the substantive evidence. If that evidence, remains unimpeached it may be relied upon notwithstanding the fact that the relevant entries in the general diary have not been made or proved. Sub-Inspector Gautam was not asked to explain why he reached Kotdwar late on 28-4-1979. It is not to be presumed that the delay was Intentional and for the purpose of keeping the accused at the police station so that he could be shown to the witnesses there. Some facts should have been brought out to show that the delay was intentional, but this was not done. In the instant case there is no reason to doubt the denial of Sub-Inspector R.C. Gautam on this point. Further, it may be reiterated that the witnesses of identification denied the defence suggestion that the accused was shown to them at Kotdwar. In view of the above discussion it can fairly and reasonably be concluded that the appellant was not shown to the witnesses of the case from the time of his arrest on 12-11-1978 till the time of the test identification on 28-7-79 and the witnesses too had no opportunity to see him during this interval. The defence suggestion that the police had taken photograph of the appellant and shown it to the witnesses is also not worthy of acceptance. Mere ipse-dixit of an accused, in the absence of anything else, which may go to support such contention, does not deserve preference over the denial of the witnesses who have been subject to cross-examination. 15. In this case the appellant was put up for identification after 14 months from the date of occurrence. The appellant was arrested about 1/2 months after the occurrence. His transfer from Hoshiyarpur to Pauri jail took about five months. The appellant arrived in Pauri jail on 29-4-79 and the identification was actually held on 28-7-79 i.e. about three months after his arrival in Pauri jail. The delay at both the stages does not appear to be intentional or on account of want of diligence on the part of the; Investigating Agency. The appellant arrived in Pauri jail on 29-4-79 and the identification was actually held on 28-7-79 i.e. about three months after his arrival in Pauri jail. The delay at both the stages does not appear to be intentional or on account of want of diligence on the part of the; Investigating Agency. It appears that correspondence about transfer of the appellant from Hoshiyarpur jail to Pauri jail did not bear much fruit and, therefore, a Sub-Inspector had to be sent to arrange for transfer. The witnesses who were to identify the appellant were to be collected from various places and this seems to have caused delay of about three months after the arrival of the appellant in Pauri jail. 16. It is desirable both in the interest of the honest witness and of the suspect himself that the latter should be put up for test identification without delay. The reason is that human memory is likely to fade with the passage of time. Various factors determine how long a witness may reasonably retain the features of an unknown person in his memory. The length of time, the distance from which the culprit is seen, the light available and the state of mind of the witness, are some important factors which go to determine: how deep and vivid impression a witness is likely to obtain of the features of a miscreant. Another important factor which varies from person to person and which is an individual factor, is the power of observation and capacity to remember. A person with a good power of observation and capacity to remember is likely to retain the impression for a longer time than another who is not so observant and hence it has not been considered safe to lay down a rigid and inflexible rule that the identification evidence invariably loses value on account of delay. Each case of delay has been considered in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances and then it has been decided whether the delay is sufficient or not to render the identification evidence unsafe to rely upon. In Wakil Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not lay down a rigid rule that delay in identification would invariably render the identification evidence unworthy of reliance. In that case the occurrence had taken place at night. In Wakil Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not lay down a rigid rule that delay in identification would invariably render the identification evidence unworthy of reliance. In that case the occurrence had taken place at night. There was single identification against Wakil Singh appellant and it was considered unsafe to convict him on its basis alone as the test identification was held after a lapse of 3-1/2 months and the description of dacoits was not given to the investigating officer by the witnesses. The present case is distinguishable on facts. Here, the occurrence had taken place in broad day light and the miscreants had come in close contact with the victims including Dili Ram (PW 8). The miscreants had looted all the members of two groups which numbered about ten. The main object of the miscreants was to relieve their victims of ornaments and other valuables and not to cause any other kind of harm to them. The pilgrims and the guide were thus, not placed under any extra mental strain or fear. After looting these groups, the miscreants took them to the Khai and made them to sit there. Thus, the victims had long opportunity to see the miscreants. Dili Ram who was a guide and whose job was to take new groups of pilgrims to various places day after day, would have had a keen power of observation. In these circumstances, some victims and specially Dili Ram could remember the features of the miscreants for a sufficiently long time. His identification of the appellant after a lapse of fourteen months, cannot, in these circumstances, be viewed with suspicion. I am satisfied that in this case the identification evidence given by Dili Ram does not deserve to be rejected as unworthy of reliance on the ground that the test identification parade was held 14 months after the occurrence. 17. The identification evidence of person has not been challenged on any other ground. The Magistrate who held the test identification parade had taken all the necessary precautions. The identification evidence of person given by Dili Ram (PW 8) against the appellant was rightly accepted by the learned Judge and I too see no good reason to take a different view. 18. Now I proceed to consider the other kind of evidence namely, recovery of ornaments at the pointing out of the appellant. The identification evidence of person given by Dili Ram (PW 8) against the appellant was rightly accepted by the learned Judge and I too see no good reason to take a different view. 18. Now I proceed to consider the other kind of evidence namely, recovery of ornaments at the pointing out of the appellant. The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, S.I. Ujagar Singh (PW 18), public witness Keemti Lal (PW 1), and the two shop keepers Ravindra Kumar (PW 2) and Vijai Kumar (PW 3) to prove the recovery of gold and silver ornaments at the pointing out of the appellant. 19. Ravindra Kumar (PW 2) was a bullion merchant dealing in gold and silver ornaments and had his shop in Dibbi Bazar Hoshiyarpur. He stated that Lachhman Das accused came to his shop on 2-6-1978 and sold one pair of gold tops, two gold rings, one gold om-patra, one gold chain and a pair of silver paizeb (Exs. III to VIII) to him. He made an entry of this transaction in his bahi and obtained the thumb marks of Lachhman Das. He proved the entry Ex. Ka. 3 in the bahi Ex. X. The witness added that on 16-11-1978 the accused Lachhman Das brought the police to his shop and he (witness) handed over the ornaments which Lachhman Das had sold to him, to the police. A recovery memo was prepared in that connection. The police made the recovered ornaments into a sealed bundle. 20. Vijay Kumar (PW 3) was a bullion merchant dealing in gold and silver ornaments and had his shop in Pratap Bazar, Hoshiyarpur. He stated that Lachhman Das accused came to his; shop on 2-6-1978 and sold 7 gold bangles (Ex. I) to him. He made an entry about this transaction in his bahi and obtained the thumb marks of Lachhman Das. He proved the entry and the thumb mark of Lachhman Das (Ex. Ka. 4), in the bahi (Ex. II) He added that the accused Lachhman Das brought the Police to his shop on 16-11-1978 and he (witness) handed over the seven gold bangles to the police. The police prepared a recovery memo and sealed the bangles in a bundle. He proved the entry and the thumb mark of Lachhman Das (Ex. Ka. 4), in the bahi (Ex. II) He added that the accused Lachhman Das brought the Police to his shop on 16-11-1978 and he (witness) handed over the seven gold bangles to the police. The police prepared a recovery memo and sealed the bangles in a bundle. S.I. Ujagar Singh (PW 155) and public witness Keemti Lal (PW 1) stated that on 16-11-1978 Lachhman Das accused had taken them first to the shop of Ravindra Kumar Sarraf, and then to the shop of Vijay Kumar Sarraf and the two shop keepers had produced the ornaments which were sold by Lachhman Das to them. These witnesses stated that recovery memos were prepared and the recovered ornaments were placed in sealed bundles. The Sub Inspector also stated about the entries Exs. Ka 3 and Ka. 4 and the two bahi khatas. 21. The above evidence has been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on a variety of grounds. He has contended that the bahi of Ravindra Kumar (PW 2) commenced from 12-5-1970, but the entry dated 2-6-1978 (Ex. Ka. 3) was the first entry thereafter. This shop keeper had not shown the amount paid to the accused in the bahi khata and had said that he had taken that amount on loan from some shop keeper in the market. The learned counsel has also criticised the other bahi by pointing out that it commenced from the year 1965-66, but the first entry was dated 25-4-1978. It is true that in the bahi of Ravindra Kumar there was an endorsement showing that the bahi was commencing from 12-5-1970 and thereafter on the next leaf the first entry dated 2-6-78 related to the sale of gold and silver ornaments by the accused. The other bahi commenced from the year 1965-66. There are entities up to 16-7-1966 in this bahi and thereafter the entries start from 25-4-1978. Several entries exist after the entry dated 2-6-1978. It is true that these bahis cannot be treated as account books regularly kept in the course of business. However, in the circumstances of this case, the entries Exs. Ka. 3 and Ka. 4 need not be rejected on the above ground. 22. One thing which lends assurance to the genuineness of the entries Exs. Ka. 3 and Ka. It is true that these bahis cannot be treated as account books regularly kept in the course of business. However, in the circumstances of this case, the entries Exs. Ka. 3 and Ka. 4 need not be rejected on the above ground. 22. One thing which lends assurance to the genuineness of the entries Exs. Ka. 3 and Ka. 4 is the presence of the thumb marks of Lachhman Das on these entries. Ravindra Kumar denied the defence suggestion that the thumb mark was not of Lachhman Das. This suggestion was not made to Vijay Kumar. It the thumb marks were really not of Lachhman Das appellant, he could very well ask the learned Trial Judge to get these thumb marks compared with his specimen thumb marks, but this was not got done. It was not the case of Lachhman Das appellant that the police had obtained his thumb marks on these entries by force. The two shop keepers stated that the thumb marks on the respective entry was that of Lachhman Das. The other thing which goes to establish the genuiness of the entries dated 2-6-1978 and the recovery of ornaments on 16-11-1978 on the pointing out of Lachhman Das appellant, is the recovery of large number of gold and silver ornaments. Neither the police of Hashiyarpur, nor that of P.S. Laxman Jhoola could find this number of ornaments to plant on the appellant. The details of looted ornaments were mentioned in the first information report lodged on 29-5-1978 and the recovered ornaments find mention in that list. The two bullion dealers (PWs. 2 and 3) could have no reason to concoct evidence and depose falsely against the appellant. The very fact that these shopkeepers did not get the ornaments melted till 16-11-1978 shows that they had purchased the ornaments bona fide on payment of requisite price. These two shop keepers were not in any manner accomplices, and their evidence is not to be treated as the evidence of accomplices. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the prosecution case regarding sale of looted ornaments by the appellant to Ravindra Kumar and Vijay Kumar on 2-6-1978 and their subsequent recovery from the possession of the said shopkeepers on the pointing out of the appellant, is true and worthy of reliance. 23. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the prosecution case regarding sale of looted ornaments by the appellant to Ravindra Kumar and Vijay Kumar on 2-6-1978 and their subsequent recovery from the possession of the said shopkeepers on the pointing out of the appellant, is true and worthy of reliance. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has next challenged the result of the test identification proceedings of the ornaments, on the ground that only two or three items were mixed with each kind of ornaments. The result of test identification of ornaments should not, in this case, be discarded on this ground. The identification proceedings were held at Pauri which is a remote place in the hills. It appears that a larger number of gold items were not available for mixing with the items to be identified. 24. The result of the test identification of ornaments has not been challenged on any other ground. Shanker Nath Tandon (PW) and his wife Smt.Kamlesh Tandon correctly identified three gold bangles without committing any mistake. Smt.Uma Burman correctly identified one gold chain without committing any mistake. Umesh Kumar Verma correctly identified the remaining four gold bangles, two gold rings, a pair of silver paizebs and the gold om patra without committing any mistake. These witnesses correctly identified these ornaments at the time of the trial as well. They stated that these ornaments belonged to them and were looted by the dacoits on 29-5-1978. They did not see these ornaments from the time of dacoity till the holding of the test identification parade. This evidence of the witnesses was rightly relied upon by the learned Trial Judge. 25. The appellant did not claim the recovered ornaments as his own and did not offer any explanation as to how he came by them on or before 2-6-1978. 26. The above evidence goes to establish that the appellant was in possession of the looted ornaments on 2-6-78 and had sold them to two bullion dealers in Hoshiyarpur. The evidence of identification of person coupled with the evidence that the appellant was in possession of the looted ornaments on 2-6-1978 and sold them that day to two bullion dealers, is sufficient to lead to the inference that the appellant was one of the dacoits who had looted the pilgrims on the way between the temple of Nilkanth Mahadeo and Rishikesh on 29-5-1978. The appellant was, therefore, rightly held guilty of the offence under section 395, IPC. 27. In the circumstances of this case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years cannot be taken as excessive. 28. In the result, this appeal has no merit and fails. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant Lachhman Das are confirmed. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out the sentence according to law. Appeal dismissed.