S.C. AGRAWAL, J.—Karnidan, the appellant in D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 251 of 1977 and Kishanlal, the appellant in D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 1978, have filed these appeals against their conviction and sentence under the judgment dated May 24, 1977 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1977. In the Sessions Case aforesaid, the appellant Karnidan was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302, 448, 394/397, I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant Kishanlal was prosecuted for the offences under sections 302/34, 448 and 394/397, I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Karnidan of the offences under sections 448, 302, 394/397, I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant Kishanlal of the offences under sections 448, 302/34 and 394/397, I.P.C. Both the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. respectively. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under section 448, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under section 394/397, I.P.C. Appellant Karnidan has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution of the appellants for the offences mentioned above relates to an incident, which took place in the house of Bhanwarlal P.W. 3 in village Alasan P.S. Sayala, District Jalore on 5th November, 1976 at about 2 p.m. In the said incident, one Mohandas is said to have been killed and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4) and Smt. Mathra w/o Inder Mal (PW 5) are said to have been robbed of the gold chains from their persons. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mohandas, who was an employee of Bhanwai Lal and on 5th November, 1976 at about 2 p.m. he was sitting in the house of Bhanwarlal. Smt. Mathra wife of Burmal (P.W. 4) was also present in the house, at the time, both the appellants entered the house of Bhanwar Lal. Appellant Karnidan was armed with a doubled barrel gun. On entering the pol (entrance hall) of the house, appellant Karnidan asked Mohandas to show them the wealth and when Mohandas expressed his inability to do so, Karnidan fired the gun at Mohandas. The gun shot hit Mohandas and he fell down injured. Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4) shoutde that Mohandas had been killed and came to the "pol". On entering the pol (entrance hall) of the house, appellant Karnidan asked Mohandas to show them the wealth and when Mohandas expressed his inability to do so, Karnidan fired the gun at Mohandas. The gun shot hit Mohandas and he fell down injured. Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4) shoutde that Mohandas had been killed and came to the "pol". Appellant Kami Dan came near her and she set down. Thereupon, the appellant Kishanlal put his feet over the feet of Smt. Mathra (P.W. 4) and appellant Karnidan snatched away 2 gold chains from her person, one of the gold chains weighed about 5| tolas and the other gold chains weighed about 1-1/2 tolas. On hearing the cry of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5), who was in the adjacent house, which has a connecting window, entered the house of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) through the connecting window and on seeing her the appellants ran after her and appellant Karnidan caught hold of her and appellant Kishanlal snatched a gold chain weighing about 3 tolas from her person and thereafter the appellants ran away. The case of the prosecution further is that at the time when the appellant; came to the house of Bhanwarlal, Indermal (P.W. 8) was sitting in the "pol" of his house, which is adjacent to the house of Bhanwarlal and on seeing the appellants enter the house of Bhanwarlal, he came behind them and saw the incident of shooting of Mohandas as well as snatching of gold chains from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) from outside through the window in the "pol" in the house of Bhanwarlal. The case of the prosecution further is that Khimchand (PW. 12) has his house opposite the house of Bhanwarlal and was present in the house at the time of the . incident and had seen the appellants going to the house of Bhanwarlal and shooting deceased Mohandas as well as snatching the gold chains from the person of Smt. Mathra s/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4). 3. The report (Ex. P/4) about the incident was lodged by Indermal at P.S. Sayala, which is situated at a distance of about 8 miles from the village Alasan. 3. The report (Ex. P/4) about the incident was lodged by Indermal at P.S. Sayala, which is situated at a distance of about 8 miles from the village Alasan. In the said report, Indermal mentioned the name of appellant Karnidan, but he did not mention the name of the other accused-person for the reason that he did not know him from before. The description of the other accused, who accompanied Karnidan was, however, mentioned by Indermal at the time when the report was lodged at the police station and according to the said description, the other person had black complexion, average built and medium stature. On the basis of the report (Ex. P/4), the first information report (Ex. 5) was recorded by the Head Constable Shri Jaggaram(P.W. 6) because Shri Premsingh, S.H.O., P.S. Sayala was not present in the P.S. at that time. Shri Premsingh arrived at the police station at 3.45 p.m. and, after recording the statement of Indermal, he proceeded to the scene of the occurrence. A telephonic message was sent from P. S. Sayala to the Superintendent of Police, Shri Jalore about the incident and by the time, Shri Premsingh, S.H.O. reached the scene, Jalam Singh(P.W. 15) Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jalore as well as Shri Lakhsingh, Superintendent of Police, Jalore had also reached the scene. Under the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, Shri Jalamsingh (P.W. 15) Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jalore took up the investigation and prepared the memo of site-inspection (Ex.P/7) as well as the site-plan (Ex.P/8A). He also prepared the memo (Ex.P/13) relating to the condition of the dead body of Mohandas and seized the clothes and other articles found on the person of the body of the deceased vide memo Ex. P/14. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Mohandas was conducted by Dr. Keshav Kotwani (P.W. 2) vide post-mortem report (Ex. P/l). The appellants Karnidan and Kishanlal were arrested at Soniyana in District Udaipur on 11th November, 1976, vide memos of arrest Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/ll respectively. At the time of his arrest, appellant Karnidan was found in possession of a double barrel muzzle loading gun and both the barrels of the said gun were loaded. At the time of his arrest, the appellant Karnidan was wearing a gold chain (Ex. 3) with a round "phool" (pendent) bearing "paglias" (feet of the goddess). P/ll respectively. At the time of his arrest, appellant Karnidan was found in possession of a double barrel muzzle loading gun and both the barrels of the said gun were loaded. At the time of his arrest, the appellant Karnidan was wearing a gold chain (Ex. 3) with a round "phool" (pendent) bearing "paglias" (feet of the goddess). The said chain weighing 2 tolas and 15| anas was seized. Appellant Kishan Lal, at the time of his arrest, had with him a bag containing gun powder. After their arrest, the appellants were brought to Jalore and by order dated November 13, 1976, they were remanded to judicial custody. While in judicial custody, a test identification parade was conducted on November 18, 1976 by Shri Padamsingh(P.W. 14) vide memo Ex. P/l5 and the appellants were put up for identification by the three witnesses; namely, Imam khan, Nabia and Bhanwardan (PW.11). After the completion of the said identification proceedings, the appellants were placed in police custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore by his order dated November 18, 1976. On November 21, 1975, appellant Karnidan gave information vide memo Ex. P/17, about his having sold one gold chain weighing 1 tola and 7 anas having a "phool" bearing the name of Mataji to a gold-smith near the temple of Charrbhuja for Rs. 790/- and on the basis of the said information, a gold chain (Ex.2) was recovered from the possession of Shankarlal Sunar (PW 7) at Charbhuja, vide recovery memo Ex. P/6. On Nov. 24, 1976, appellant Kishanlal gave information vide memo Ex. P/10 about his having concealed one gold chain, in an old Dharamshala in village Leta and on the basis of the said information, a gold chain (Ex. 1) weighing 5 tolas and 5 anas was recovered vide memo Ex. P/16. After the aforesaid recoveries had been made, the appellants were remanded to judicial custody by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated November 25, 1976. On December 2, 1976, appellant Kishanlal was put up for identification in an identification parade conducted by Shri Padamsingh (P.W. 14) vide memo Ex. P. 8. In the said identification parade, the appellant Kishanlal was identified by Indermal (P.W. 8), Khimchand (P.W.12), Amichand, Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4). Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5) and Shankaria (P.W.I). On December 2, 1976, appellant Kishanlal was put up for identification in an identification parade conducted by Shri Padamsingh (P.W. 14) vide memo Ex. P. 8. In the said identification parade, the appellant Kishanlal was identified by Indermal (P.W. 8), Khimchand (P.W.12), Amichand, Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4). Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5) and Shankaria (P.W.I). The three gold chains were put up for identification in the identification proceedings conducted by Shri Padam-Singh (PW 14) on. December 3, 1976 vide memos Ex. P.3 and Ex. P9 and the gold chains (Ex.1 and Ex.2) were identified by Bhanwar Lal (P.W. 3) and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW. 4) as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) and the gold chain (Ex. 3) was identified by Indermal (P.W. 8) and Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (PW.5) as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5). After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against both the appellants in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore and by order dated January 4, 1977, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions and thereupon, the appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore on the charges referred to above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 15 witnesses. Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5), Indermal (PW 8) and khimchand PW, 12) have been examined as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 11 Bhanwardan has been examined to prove that both the appellants had stayed at his house in village Kharal on the night preceding the occurrence and had left his house at about 12 O clock in the noon on November 5, 1976. P.W. 1 Shankaria has been examined to prove that both the appellants had come to his field to drink water some time before the incident and that about two hours thereafter he had learnt about the incident. Dr. Keshav Katwani (P.W. 2) is the Medical Officer, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Mohandas and has proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1). P.W. 7 Shankarlal has proved the recovery of the gold chain Ex. 2 from his possession. Dr. Keshav Katwani (P.W. 2) is the Medical Officer, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Mohandas and has proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1). P.W. 7 Shankarlal has proved the recovery of the gold chain Ex. 2 from his possession. P.W. 3 Bhanwarlal is the son of Smt. Mathra wife of Bhurmal (PW 4) and has identified the gold chains (Ex.1 and Ex. 2). P.W. 13 Okharam is the attesting witness of the recovery memo (Ex. P. 16) relating to the gold chain (Ex.1). P.W. 14 Padamsingh is Tehsildar, Jalore, who was officiating as Magistrate at Jalore and had conducted the identification proceedings relating to the accused-persons as well as the gold chains and has proved the memos of identification (Exs. P.3, P.8 and P. 15). P.W. 6 Jaggaram was the Head Constable at P.S. Sayala, who had recorded the first information report. P.W. 9 Premsingh is S.H.O. of P.S. Sayala and had arrested the appellants. P.W. 15 Jalamsingh, Dy. S.P., Jalore is the police officer, who had investigated the case. 5. The appellants, in their statements recorded under sec. 313, Cr.P.C. denied their complicity in the occurrence. Appellant Karnidan denied that any gold chain was recovered from his possession or was recovered at his instance and has also stated that the identification proceedings, which were held were not properly conducted. Appellant Kishanlal also denied having got any gold chain recovered and has stated that the identification proceedings were not properly conducted and that he had been shown earlier by the police. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the presence of the appellant Karnidan was established from the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (PW 5), Indermal (P.W.8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12), who knew the appellant from before and that apart from the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses, there was the evidence of Shankaria (P.W. 1) and Bhanwardan (P.W. 11), who had seen the said appellant and that in addition, there was the evidence with regard to the recovery of gold chain (Ex. 3) from the possession of appellant Karnidan and the recovery of gold chain (Ex. 2) on the basis of the information given by the said appellant, and that the gold chains had been identified belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5) and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4) respectively. 3) from the possession of appellant Karnidan and the recovery of gold chain (Ex. 2) on the basis of the information given by the said appellant, and that the gold chains had been identified belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5) and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4) respectively. As regards appellant Kishanlal, the Additional Sessions Judge has held that his complicity in the crime was established from the evidence of Shankaria (P.W. 1), Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W.5), Indermal (P.W. 8), Khimchand (P.W. 12) and Bhanwardan (P.W. 11), who had identified the said appellant as the other person, who was accompanying appellant Karnidan and further from the recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 1) at the instance of the said appellant and that the said gold chain had been identified as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4), In view of the findings aforesaid, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore convicted the appellants of the offences referred to above, and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. Hence these two appeals. 7. We have heard Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant Karnidan and Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant Kishanlal in support of these appeals and Shri R.C. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The fact that an incident took place in the house of P.W.3 Bhanwarlal in village Alasan on November 5, 1976 and that in the said incident, Mohandas sustained gun shot injuries as a result of which, he died at the spot, is established from the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5), Indermal (P. W. 8), Khimchand (P. W. 12) as well as by the site-plan (Ex. P. 8), memo of site-inspection (Ex. P. 7), the memo of the condition of the dead-body (Ex. P. 13), which have been proved by Jalamsingh (P. W. 15), and the postmortem report (Ex. P. 1), which has been proved by Dr. Kotwani (P. W. 2). The snatching of two gold chains (Ex. 1 and Ex. P. 8), memo of site-inspection (Ex. P. 7), the memo of the condition of the dead-body (Ex. P. 13), which have been proved by Jalamsingh (P. W. 15), and the postmortem report (Ex. P. 1), which has been proved by Dr. Kotwani (P. W. 2). The snatching of two gold chains (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2) from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) is established by the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5), Indermal (P. W. 8) and Khimchand (P. W. 12) and the identification of the said chains as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) by Bhanwarlal (PW. 3) and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW. 4) in the court as well as at the test identification held on December 3, 1976 by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14) vide memo of identification Ex P. 3, which has been proved by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14). Similarly the snatching of the gold chain (Ex. 3) from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) is established by the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) and Indermal (P.W. 8) and the first information report (Ex. P. 5) and the identification of the said chains as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) by her and her husband Indermal (P. W. 8) in the court as well as at the test identification held on December 3, 1976 by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14) vide memo of identification (Ex. P. 9) which has been proved by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14). The question, which needs to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants were the persons responsible for the said crimes. 9. We will first take up the case of appellant Karnidan. As against the said appellant, the prosecution has. P. 9) which has been proved by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14). The question, which needs to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants were the persons responsible for the said crimes. 9. We will first take up the case of appellant Karnidan. As against the said appellant, the prosecution has. relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses namely; Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4), Indermal (P. W. 8) and Khim- chand (P. W. 12), who claim to know appellant Karnidan from before and have deposed that appellant Karnidan was one of the two persons, who had entered the house of Bhanwarlal (P. W. 3) and was the person, who had fired the gun and had caused the death of Mohandas deceased and had snatched the two gold chains from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) and Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) who also claims to know appellant Karnidan from before and has deposed that appellant Karnidan had caught hold of her to enable his companion to snatch the gold chain from her person. The evidence of these witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the report (Ex. P.4) lodged by Indermal (P. W. 8) at P. S. Sayala wherein the name of Karnidan is mentioned and the evidence of Shankaria (P. W. 1) and Bhanwar-dan (PW. 11). In addition, there is the evidence with regard to the recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 3) from the person of the appellant Karnidan at the time of his arrest, which gold chain has been identified by Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) and Indermal (P. W. 8) as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) and the evidence of recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 2) at his instance from the possession of Shankarlal Sunar (P. W. 7) and the said gold chains(Ex. 2) has been identified as belonging to Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) by her son, Bhanwarlal (P. W. 3) and Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4). 10. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant Karnidan has submitted that no reliance should be placed on the testimony Smt Mathra w/o of Bhurmal (P.W.4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (PW.5), Indermal (P.W.8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12) in so far as they claim to know appellant Karnidan from before. 10. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant Karnidan has submitted that no reliance should be placed on the testimony Smt Mathra w/o of Bhurmal (P.W.4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (PW.5), Indermal (P.W.8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12) in so far as they claim to know appellant Karnidan from before. In this regard, Shri Arora has submitted that appellant Karnidan is not a resident of village Kharal as claimed by the witnesses and that the father of the said appellant stays at Jodhpur that there was no occasion for the witnesses to have seen appellant Karnidan earlier and to have known him. It is true that the father of appellant Karnidan is employed in the Railways and stays at Jodhpur. But from the evidence of Bhanwardan (PW.11) who is a resident of village Kharal, it appears that appellant Karnidan has a house in Kharal. Bhanwardan has also stated that Hamirdan, father of appellant Karnidan had 4 sons and that when they were young, they used to stay at Kharal and thereafter they had gone to Jodhpur. Khimchand (P.W. 12) has stated that appellant Karnidan often comes to Kharal and that he also visits village Alasan. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Shankaria, it appear that a river separates village Alasan from village Kharal. P.W. 1 Shankaria has also stated that he had seen appellant Karnidan living in Kharal. Similarly, Indermal (P.W.8) has stated that appellant Karnidan stays at Kharal and that he also visits village Alasan. Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4} also has stated that she know appellant Karnidan because he comes to the village. To the same effect is the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5), who has also stated that appellant Karnidan comes to the village and she knows him. The evidence of the aforesaid witness thus shows that appellant Karnidan has also been staying in village Kharal and has been visiting village Alasan frequently and, therefore, he was known to the witness. During the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has been brought out which throws doubt on their testimony that they knew appellant Karnidan from before because he used to visit village Kharal and village Alasan. 11. Mr. During the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing has been brought out which throws doubt on their testimony that they knew appellant Karnidan from before because he used to visit village Kharal and village Alasan. 11. Mr. Arora had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1), wherein, the Supreme Court did not place reliance on the testimony of a witness, Smt. Jaswant Kaur, who had claimed that she knew the accused Ajitsingh from before. In that case, however, the accused concerned viz. Ajitsingh had at the time of surrendering, moved an application, wherein he had prayed that he should be put up for test identification parade for identification by all the eye-witnesses because they did not know him from before and in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. he had taken the stand that he had never gone to the village where the incident had taken place before or after the occurrence and on the basis of the said application of the said accused, the Magistrate had passed an order that the accused should be identified at a test identification parade. A test identification parade was held but the witness, Smt. Jaswant Kaur, was not asked to identify the accused Ajitsingh at the said test identification parade. In these circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that in view of the stand taken by the accused Ajaitsingh, the prosecution should have put Smt. Jaswant Kaur also at the test identification parade to identify the said accused and if the accused was not known to Smt. Jaswant Kaur, as claimed by him, then she would not have been able to identify him and if the accused was known to her, then also the prosecution was not to lose anything. The aforesaid decision can have no application to the present case, inasmuch as, appellant Karnidan has at no stage during the course of investigation or trial claimed that he had never visited villages Alasan and Kharal and that the prosecution witnesses did not know him from before. 12. In support of his submission that appellant Karnidan was not known to the prosecution witnesses from before and that his name has been subsequently introduced, Mr. Arora has placed reliance on the post-mortem report (Ex. 12. In support of his submission that appellant Karnidan was not known to the prosecution witnesses from before and that his name has been subsequently introduced, Mr. Arora has placed reliance on the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1) wherein, under the column "information furnished by the police", it has been stated that the "deceased Shri Mohandas died by gun shot fired at him by some unknown persons". The submission of Mr. Arora was that if appellant Karnidan had been known to the witnesses from before and if his name was disclosed in the first information report lodged by Indermal, there was no reason why the name of appellant Karnidan was not mentioned in the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1). According to Mr. Arora, the aforesaid circumstance also suggests that the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 4) was not recorded on November 5, 1976 at 3.30 p.m., as claimed by the prosecution but was prepared subsequently and was ante-dated. In this regard, Mr. Arora, has also submitted that even though the first information report is claimed to have been lodged on November 5, 1976 at 3.30 p.m., the copy of the said report was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore only on May 8, 1976 i.e. after lapse of more 2 days, and the delay in the receipt of the copy of the first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that the first information report was not lodged on November 5, 1976 at 3.30 p.m., but was lodged subsequently and was ante-dated. In this regard, Mr. Arora, has also submitted that the various memos (Exs.p7, p8A, P13 and pl4), which were prepared by the investigating officer on November 5, 1976 only bear the case number but do not contain the names of the appellant Karnidan. Mr. Arora has also pointed out that Indermal (P.W.8), who had lodged the first information report has stated that after lodging the report, he had returned to the scene of the occurrence along with the S.H.O. of P.S. Sayala but the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Jalamsingh (P.W. 15) has stated that when he reached the scene of the occurrence, P.W.8 Indermal was present there, which shows that Indermal (P.W.8) had not gone to lodge the report at P.S. Sayala and that the report was lodged subsequently. 13. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions of Mr. 13. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Arora but we are unable to agree with the same. P.W. 8 Indermal and P.W. 6 Jagga-ram, Head-constable have both stated that the report (Ex. P4) was lodged by Indermal (P.W.8) at P.S. Sayala on November. 5, 1976 at 3.30 p.m. Both the witnesses have stated that at the time when the report (Ex. P.4) was lodged, the S.H.O. of P.S. Sayala was not present at the police station and he arrived shortly after the report had been lodged. According to Jaggaram (P.W. 6), the S.H.O. P.S. Sayala Premsingh arrived at about 3.45 p.m. and after arriving at the P.S. he recorded the statement of Indermal and thereafter, Premsingh, S.H.O., P.S. Sayala along with P.W. 8 Indermal and P.W. 6 Jaggaram went to the scene of the occurrence. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W.6 Premsingh. P.W. 9 Premsingh has also stated that when he reached the scene of the occurrence Shri Lakhsingh, Superintendent of Police, Jalore as well as Shri Jalamsingh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalore were present in the "pol" of the house of Bhanwarlal. According to Premsingh, it took about half an hour to record the statement of P.W. 8 Indermal and that he had left P.S. Sayala after half an hour to 45 minutes and that he had reached the scene of the occurrence at 5 p.m.. Since P.W. 8 Indermal and P.W. 9 Premsingh had reached the scene of the occurrence shortly after the arrival of Jalam Singh (P.W. 15) at the scene, of occurrence, Jalanasingh could have seen P.W. 8 Indermal at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, only on the basis of the statement of Jalamsingh (P.W. 15) that PW 8 Indermal was among the persons present at the scene of occurrence, it could not be said that P.W. 8 Indermal had not gone to P.S. Sayala for the purpose of lodging the report. 14. With regard to the delay in the receipt of the copy of the first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, it maybe observed that P.W.6 Jaggaram, Head-constable has stated that after recording the first information report, he had sent a copy of the same to the Magistrate by dak on the same day. 14. With regard to the delay in the receipt of the copy of the first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, it maybe observed that P.W.6 Jaggaram, Head-constable has stated that after recording the first information report, he had sent a copy of the same to the Magistrate by dak on the same day. The first information report bears the endorsement "Adalat PSS No. 1882-2/5.11.76", which indicates that the copy of the first information report was sent to the Magistrate on November 5, 1976 vide despatch No. 1882-2 of P.S. Sayala. This lends support to the testimony of P.W.6 Jaggaram that the copy of the first information report was sent to the Magistrate on November 5, 1976. In this connection, it may be noticed that November 6, 1976 happened to be a holiday on account of Gurunanak Jayanti and Nov. 7, 1976 happened to be a Sunday. The copy of the first information report was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore on November 8, 1976. In the circumstances, it can not be said that there was undue delay in the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate. Moreover, in Palasingh vs. State of Punjab (2), the Supreme Court has observed that in a case, where the first information report has actually been recorded without delay and the investigation has started on the basis of that first information report, the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned can not, by itself, justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution in supportable. The aforesaid observations in Palasingh vs. State of Punjab (supra) were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (3). In Ishwarsingh vs. State of U.P. (4), relied upon by Mr. Arora, the first information report was said to have been lodged at 9.05 a.m. on February 14 and it was sent from the police station on the next day i.e. on February 15 and it was received by the Magistrate on the morning of February 16 and the court held that no explanation had been offered for the extra ordinary delay in sending the report to the Magistrate and that was a circumstance, which provided a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date. The said decision has, however, no application to the fact of the present case because here there is evidence of P.W.6 Jaggaram to the effect that the copy of the first information report was sent to the Magistrate on the same day on which it was recorded and the said evidence of PW 6 Jaggaram finds support from the endorsement on the copy of the first information report (Ex.p.5). Thus, it cannot be said that in the present case, there was delay in sending the copy of the first information report to the Magistrate may create doubt with regard to the authenticity of the first information report. 15. The other circumstance, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Arora; namely, failure to mention the name of appellant Karnidan in the various memos (Exs. P. 7, P. 8 A and P. 13) that were prepared by the Investigating Officer on November 5, 1976, is also not of much consequence because the said memos bear the number of the first information report. In our opinion, it was not necessary for the investigating officer to have put the name of appellant Karnidan along with the number of the first information report in the memos prepared by him and the failure to mention the name of appellant Karnidan in the said memos does not mean that the name of appellant Karnidan was not disclosed on the date the said memos were prepared and that, the name of appellant Karnidan came to be known later. 16. Nor can much significance be attached to the omission on the part of the medical officer Dr. Kotwani to mention the name of appellant Karnidan in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-l) in view of the explanation offered by Dr. Kotwani (P. W. 2) that he had stated in the post-mortem report that the deceased had died by gun fire by some unknown persons for the reason that the said persons were unknown to him. While preparing the post-mortem report the medical officer is more concerned with the condition of the dead body sent for post mortem examination then with the name of the assailants. The failure to mention the name of appellant Karnidan in the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1) cannot be of much consequence and no inference can be drawn from such omission. While preparing the post-mortem report the medical officer is more concerned with the condition of the dead body sent for post mortem examination then with the name of the assailants. The failure to mention the name of appellant Karnidan in the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1) cannot be of much consequence and no inference can be drawn from such omission. In support of this submission that the name of appellant Karnidan was not known to the witnesses and that it has been added subsequently. Mr. Arora has pointed out that the footprints that were found near the scene of the incident as well as near the Patwarkhana were covered by the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer Shri Jalamsingh (P.W. 15) has also stated that he had taken Gania Bheel "Pagi" with him to the scene for the purpose of comparison of the footprints. The submission of Mr. Arora was that if the name of appellant Karnidan was known, there was no necessity for taking these steps. In our view, there is no merit in this contention. P.W. 15 Jalamsingh does say that while coming to the scene of the occurrence he had brought Gania Bheel Pagi with him and that the footprints were found covered at three or four the places in the lane but the footprints were not of such a nature that their moulds could be taken. He has further stated that he did not consider it necessary to get the foot-prints compared by Gania Bheel. In this context, it may be staled that according to the first information report, the accused persons were two in number and one of them was appellant Karnidan but the other accused person was unknown. Since one of the accused persons was not known, the investigating officer may have considered it necessary to cover the foot-prints that were found near the scene of the occurrence and might have also taken Gania Bheel Pagi to the scene. But this does not mean that the name of appellant Karnidan had not been disclosed to the police till then. 17. Thus, none of the contentions urged by Mr. Arora in support of this submission that the name of appellant Karnidan was not disclosed by the witness P.W.8 Indermal immediately after the occurrence while lodging the report (Ex. But this does not mean that the name of appellant Karnidan had not been disclosed to the police till then. 17. Thus, none of the contentions urged by Mr. Arora in support of this submission that the name of appellant Karnidan was not disclosed by the witness P.W.8 Indermal immediately after the occurrence while lodging the report (Ex. P. 4) and that he was implicated subsequently, can not be accepted, and it must be held that the name of appellant Karnidan was disclosed by P. W. 8 Inder Mal in the first information report, which was lodged within 2 hours of the incident and the aforesaid circumstances lends strong corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses; namely, P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal, P.W. 5, Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal, P.W. 8, Indermal, and P.W. 12 Khimchand. In addition, there is the evidence of Bhanwardan (P.W. 11) and Shankaria (P. W. 1), who have corroborated the testimony of these witnesses because P. W. 11 Bhanwardan has stated that appellant Karnidan along with one other person had come to village Kharal and had stayed with him in the night preceding the occurrence and had left his house at 12 O clock in the noon, on the date of the incident and P. W. 1 Shankaria has stated that appellant Karnidan along with one other person had come to his field to drink water and that 2 hours thereafter, he had learnt about the incident. 18. Another contention that was urged by Mr. Arora to challenge the testimony of the eye-witnesses was that according to these witnesses, only one gun shot was fired, whereas, the injuries found on the person of the deceased as mentioned in the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 1) indicate that two gun shots were fired. In this connection, Mr. Arora, has pointed out that there was one dense gun shot wound 1-1/2" in diameter above left nipple in mid of left side of chest anteriorly and in addition to the said wound, there were multiple black projectile marks on left side of chest extending from left nipple to left shoulder anteriorly, which were scattered in an area of 6" long and 4" wide on left side of chest anteriorly and that the projectile holes were about .5 cms. in diameter any varying in depth from .5 cm to deep upto the chest cavity. According to Mr. in diameter any varying in depth from .5 cm to deep upto the chest cavity. According to Mr. Arora the multiple black projectile marks, which were found in the area of 6"x4" wide on the left side of chest extending from left nipple to left shoulder, were caused by a different shot and were not caused by the shot, which had caused the dense gun shot wound 1-1/2" diameter above left nipple in mid of left side of chest. In our view, the aforesaid contention of Mr. Arora stands negatived by the evidence of Dr. Keshav Kotwani (P.W. 2). who has deposed that the injuries that were found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by one fire only. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of Dr. Kotwani which may throw doubt on the aforesaid statement made by him during the course of examination-in-chief. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Arora that 2 gun shots were fired and the evidence of the eye witnesses that only one gun shot was fired, should not be accepted and for that reason, the evidence of the eye witnesses must be rejected. 19. In so far as the recovery of the 2 gold chains is concerned, Mr. Arora has submitted that according to the first information report as well as the statement of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) and Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) at the time when the chains were snatched from the persons of the ladies, they had been broken and that the chain (Ex 3) which was received from the possession of the appellant Karnidan as well as the chain (Ex. 2) which was recovered at the instance of appellant Karnidan from the possession of Shanker Lal Sunar were not found in broken condition, which shows that the chains (Ex.2 and Ex. 3) were not the chains, which are said to have been snatched by appellant Karnidan. We find no force in the aforesaid contention. The chain (Ex. 3), which was recovered from the possession of appellant Karnidan at the time of his arrest, has been identified as belonging to her by Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) and her husband Indermal (P. W. 8) in the court. Similarly, the chain Ex. We find no force in the aforesaid contention. The chain (Ex. 3), which was recovered from the possession of appellant Karnidan at the time of his arrest, has been identified as belonging to her by Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5) and her husband Indermal (P. W. 8) in the court. Similarly, the chain Ex. 2 which was received from the possession of Shankarlal Sunar on the basis of information given by appellant Karnidan has been identified as belonging to her by Smt Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) and her son Bhanwar-lal (P. W.3). The statements of these witnesses find corroboration from the memos (Ex. P9 and P3) relating to the identification proceedings, which were conducted by Shri Padamsingh (P. W. 14) in relation to the aforesaid chains which have been proved by Shri Padamsingh (P.W. 14). The chain (Ex. 3) was being worn by appellant Karnidan at the time of his arrest and the (Ex. 3) was sold by him to Shankarlal Sunar (P.W. 7). It is quite possible that after the chains had been snatched away, appellant Karnidan might have repaired the same and, therefore, merely because the chains at the time when they were recovered, were not found in a broken condition, would not mean that the chains (Ex. 2 and 3) are not the chains, which were snatched away from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW 4) and Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (PW 5) during the course of the incident. 20. We are of the opinion, that on the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5), Indermal (PW 8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12) which finds corroboration from the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 4) lodged by Indermal. as well as from the evidence of Bhanwardan (P.W. 11) and Shankaria (P.W. 1) and the evidence of recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 3) from the possession of appellant Karnidan at the time of his arrest vide arrest memo (Ex. P 11) and the evidence of recovery of gold chain (Ex. 2) from the possession of Shankarlal (P.W. 7) vide recovery memo (Ex. P 16) on the basis of information (Ex. P 17) given by appellant Krnidan, it is fully established that appellant Karnidan had participated in the occurrence and had fired the gun shot, which caused the death of Mohandas and had snatched two gold chains (Ex. 2) from the possession of Shankarlal (P.W. 7) vide recovery memo (Ex. P 16) on the basis of information (Ex. P 17) given by appellant Krnidan, it is fully established that appellant Karnidan had participated in the occurrence and had fired the gun shot, which caused the death of Mohandas and had snatched two gold chains (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2) from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW. 4) and had caught hold of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5) so as to enable his companion to snatch the gold chain (Ex. 3) from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W. 5). 21. We may now take up the case of appellant Kishanlal. To establish the participation of appellant Kishanlal in the occurrence, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses viz. Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W.5) Indermal (P.W. 8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12) as well as the evidence of Shankaria (P.W. 1) and Bhanwardan (P.W. 11), who have all identified appellant Kishanlal as the person who had accompanied appellant Karnidan to the house of Bhanwarlal (P.W. 3) at the time of the occurrence. In addition to the aforesaid evidence about the identification and participation, there is the further circumstance about recovery vide recovery memo (Ex. P 16) of a gold chain (Ex. 1), which has been identified belonging to her by Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) and her son Bhanwarlal (P.W.3). 22. Shri Dungarsingh, the learned counsel for appellant Kishanlal has submitted that no reliance should be placed on the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the identification of appellant Kishanlal by the aforesaid witnesses. In this regard, Shri Dungarsingh has submitted that the witnesses had an opportunity of seenig the appellant after he had been arrested on November 11, 1976 and before he was put up for test identification by the witnesses on Nov. 13, 1976 and Dec. 2, 1976. In this regard Shri Dungarsingh has pointed out that Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) has stated, during the course of cross examination, that after 7 days, the police had brought the accused persons to Jalore and that they had also been brought to the village and that at that time, they were wearing the chain. Mr. 2, 1976. In this regard Shri Dungarsingh has pointed out that Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) has stated, during the course of cross examination, that after 7 days, the police had brought the accused persons to Jalore and that they had also been brought to the village and that at that time, they were wearing the chain. Mr. Doongarsingh has also pointed out that although, the test identification parade was held on November 18, 1976 and in the said test identification parade, appellant Kishanlal was put up for identification by some of the witnesses, viz. Imamkhan, Navia and Bhanwardan (PW, 11) the appellant was not put up for identification by the eye witnesses on that date and that he was put up for identification by the eyewitnesses subsequently at another test identification parade held on December 2. 1976 and in the meanwhile, the appellant Kishanlal had remained in police custody from November 18, 1976 to November 25, 1976. Mr. Doongarsingh has submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that appellant Kishanlal was kept "baparda" during the period, he was in police custody and he has also pointed out that P. W. 13 Okharam, the attesting witness to the recovery memo (Ex. P. 16) of the gold chain (Ex. 1) does not mention that at the time when the gold chain (Ex. 1) was recovered from the village Leta in the presence of appellant Kishanlal, he was kept "baparda". Mr. Doongar Singh has, therefore, submitted that since adequate precautions for preventing the witnesses from seeing the appellant, had not been taken before the test identification parade was held on December 2, 1976 no importance should be attached to the aforesaid identification of appellant Kishan Lal by P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal, P.W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Inder Mal, P.W. 8 Indermal, P.W. 12 Khimchand and PW. 1 Shankaria. 23. With regard to the evidence about identification in a criminal trial, the law is well settled that the substantive evidence about the identification is the statement made by the witness in the Court in order that the said statement of the witnesses in court may carry conviction, it must be supported by a test identification parade. 1 Shankaria. 23. With regard to the evidence about identification in a criminal trial, the law is well settled that the substantive evidence about the identification is the statement made by the witness in the Court in order that the said statement of the witnesses in court may carry conviction, it must be supported by a test identification parade. These identification parades are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witness to identify the person concerned in the offence, who was not previously known to him. Bearing in mind the fact that the life and liberty of an accused may depend on the vigilance and caution on the part of the officer holding the identification parade and that justice should be done in identification, it is necessary to ensure that (i) the person required to identify the accused should have had no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the crime and before the identification and (ii) no mistakes are made by the witness or the mistakes made are negligible and for that purpose, it is necessary that the test identifica-tion should be held without much delay. (see-Budhsen vs. State of U.P. (5) and Hasib vs. State of Bihar (7). In the present case, appellant Kishanlal was arrested on November 11, 1976 and by order dated November 13, 1976 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, he was remanded to judicial custody and while he was detained in the sub-jail of Jalore, he was put up for test identification on November 18, 1976 before 3 witnesses, namely; Imamkhan, Navia and Bnanwar-dan (P. W. 11). The proceedings of the said identification are contained in the memo (Ex. P. 15), which has been proved by Shri Padamsingh (PW. 14), who was acted as Magistrate at Jalore at that time and who had conducted the said identification, proceedings. According to the aforesaid memo of identification, appellant Kishanlal was correctly identified by P.W. 11 Bhanwardan P.W. 14 Padamsingh has deposed that while conducting the aforesaid identification, the appellant was mixed with 12 other prisoners and he was given full opportunity to stand wherever, he wanted and that after identification by each witness had been completed, he was allowed to change the place. P. W. 14 Shri Padamsingh has stated that earlier appellant Kishanlal was wearing a chudidar pajama but since other persons, who were mixed with him were wearing tahmad, he was also asked to wear a tahmad According to the aforesaid witness, as soon as he had reached, appellant Kishanlal as well as appellant Karnidan, who were required to be identified by the witnesses had drenched their shirts with water and thereupon, the shirts of other persons who were mixed with them were also drenched with water. This would show that proper precautions were taken by P. W. 14 Padamsingh, while conducting the identification proceedings on November 18, 1976. After the aforesaid identification proceedings had been completed, both the appellants were placed in police custody by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated November 18, 1976 and they remained in police custody till November 25, 1976, when they were again placed in Judicial custody. Thereafter, further identification proceedings were held on December 2, 1976. In these identification proceedings, appellant Kishanlal was put up for identification by PW 8 Indermal, P. W. 12 Khimchand, P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal, PW.5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal, P.W. 1 Shankaria and Amichand. The memo of the aforesaid identification proceedings is Ex. P8 and the same has been proved by P.W. 14 Padamsingh, who had conducted the said identification proceedings. According to the aforesaid memo of identification, the appellant was correctly identified by these witnesses. The said memo shows that when appellant Kishanlal was being identified by Amichand, he (Kishanlal) had said that he had been shown to the witness by the police. The memo refers the various precautions, that were taken by the Magistrate conducting the test identification during the course of the test identification. P. W. 14 Shri Padamsingh has stated that in the identification proceedings held on December 2, 1976, 11 other persons were mixed up with the appellant and all were wearing tahmad and that appellant Kishanlal was given freedom to stand wherever he liked and after each witness had completed the identification, appellant Kishanlal was asked to change the place and that all the witnesses had correctly identified the appellant. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no infirmity can be found in the identification proceedings that were conducted by P. W. 14 Shri Padamsingh on November 18, 1976 and Dec. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no infirmity can be found in the identification proceedings that were conducted by P. W. 14 Shri Padamsingh on November 18, 1976 and Dec. 2, 1976 and the only question, which needs consideration is whether the identification of appellant Kishanlal in the identification proceedings which were held on November 18, 1976 and December 2, 1976 can be said to be vitiated on account of appellant Kishanlal having been seen by the witnesses prior to the test identification. In this regard, the main contention that has been urged by Mr. Doongarsingh based on the statement of P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal is that the accused persons were brought to Jalore 7 days after the incident and they were also brought to the village. The aforesaid statement of Smt. Mathra at the first glance lands support to the contention of Mr. Doongarsingh that appellant Kishanlal had been brought to the village and he might have been seen by the witnesses. But we find that immediately after making the aforesaid statement on which reliance has been made by Mr. Doongarsingh, Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) has retracted from the said statement and has stated— <span class="Hfont">^^eSaus Åij xkao esa mudh ykuk ugha fy[kk;k eq>s eqyfte dks dgha igys ugha fn[kyk;k FkkA** This would show that the statement made by PW 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal that the police had brought the accused-persons to the village, was made under some mis-apprehension and that she corrected herself immediately after making the said statement and has categorically stated that appellant Kishanlal was not shown to her earlier. In this regard, it may be observed that P. W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal has categorically stated that the appellants were not shown to her at the police station. P.W. 8 Indermal has also stated that he had heard 6-7 days later that the accused-persons had been arrested but they were not brought to the village. He has further stated that after their arrest while they were under remand, the accused-persons were not brought to the village and that it was not correct that before the identification proceedings, they were shown P. W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal or to his aunt Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) or to Khimchand (P. W. 12). He has further stated that after their arrest while they were under remand, the accused-persons were not brought to the village and that it was not correct that before the identification proceedings, they were shown P. W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal or to his aunt Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4) or to Khimchand (P. W. 12). P. W. 11 Bhanwardan has also stated that after the arrest, the accused persons did not come to his village. P. W. 1 Shankeria has also denied that the accused-persons were shown to him at the police station. He has also denied that the photographs of the accused-persons were shown to him at the police station. P. W. 15 Jalamsingh has denied that during the course of investigation, he had taken the accused-persons to the scene of the occurence. He has denied that he had shown the accused-persons to the witnesses by taking them to the scene of the occurrence. Thus, there is consistent evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 Shri Jalam Singh as well as the other witnesses; namely, P. W. 1 Shankaria, P.W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal and P.W. 8 Indermal, P.W. 11 Bhanwardan to the effect that the accused persons were not brought to the scene of the incident and that they were not shown to the witnesses. The only witness, who has deposed about the accused persons being brought to the village Alasan, is P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and she too has retracted from that statement. Moreover, neither of the appellants, during the course of their examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. has set up the case that after the incident and before the identification proceedings, they had been brought to village Alasan and were shown to the witnesses. From the memo (Ex.P-8) of the identification proceedings held on December 2, 1976 it appears that at the time of the said identification the only objection that was raised by appellant Kishanlal was that he had been shown to witness Amichand. No objection was raised by appellant Kishanlal at that time about his having been shown to the other witnesses, who had been called to identify him viz. P.W. 8 Indermal, PW. 12 Khimchand, P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhumal, P.W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal and P.W. 1 Shankaria. No objection was raised by appellant Kishanlal at that time about his having been shown to the other witnesses, who had been called to identify him viz. P.W. 8 Indermal, PW. 12 Khimchand, P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhumal, P.W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal and P.W. 1 Shankaria. If appellant Kishanlal had been shown to these witnesses before the test identification parade held on December 2, 1976 he would have surely raised an objection to that effect during the course of the identification proceedings in the same manner in which he raised such an objection with regard to Amichand. In the circumstances, we are unable to place reliance on the statement of P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal that one week after the incident, the accused-persons had been brought to village Alasan and to hold that the appellant was shown to the witnesses or that the witnesses could have seen appellant Kishanlal before the test identification held on November 18, 1976 and December 2, 1976. 23. Another contention urged by Mr. Doongar Singh in this regard was that the order dated November 18, 1976 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby, it was directed that the appellants be placed in police custody till November 25, 1976 does not contain a direction that during the period the appellants are in police custody, they should be kept "baparda". In this connection, Mr. Doongarsingh has invited our attention to the order dated November 25, 1976 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the appellants were directed to be kept in judicial custody which contains a direction that the appellants be kept baparda". Mr. Doongarsingh has further submitted that the prosecution has also not adduced any evidence to show that appellant Kishanlal was kept "baparda" during the period from November 18, 1976 to November 25, 1976 while he was in police custody and that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant Kishanlal could not be seen by the witnesses while he was in police custody from Nov. 18, 1976 to Nov. 25, 1976 and before his identification by the witnesses in the identification parade held on December 2, 1976. In our opinion, the aforesaid contention of Mr. Doongar Singh is without substance. A full Bench of this Court in State of Raj. 18, 1976 to Nov. 25, 1976 and before his identification by the witnesses in the identification parade held on December 2, 1976. In our opinion, the aforesaid contention of Mr. Doongar Singh is without substance. A full Bench of this Court in State of Raj. v. Ranjita (7) has considered the question as to whether it is necessary that entry should be made in the various police records about the precautions that were taken for keeping the accused-person baparda", while under police custody and whether necessary entries should be made in the jail records keeping the accused "baparda" while he is in the judicial lock-up. The Full Bench has laid down that it is not necessary that entry should be made in the-various police records of the precautions that were taken for keeping the accused-person "baparda" while under police custody and that it is also not necessary that entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused "baparda" while he is in the judicial lock-up and that it is also not necessary to specify in the warrant of commitment of the accused when he is sent to judicial custody that he is to be kept "baparda" till the identification parade takes place and that it is also not necessary to specify the precautions that the jail authorities are to take for keeping the accused "baparda". The aforesaid decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ranjita (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court in Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (8). In view of the aforesaid decisions, it must be held that it is not necessary that the necessary entry should be made in the police records as well as jail records about keeping the accused persons "baparda" while under police custody or in the judicial custody and it is open to the prosecution to establish, otherwise than by such record, that the necessary pre-cautions for keeping the accused baparda" had been taken while the accused-persons were in police custody or injudicial custody before they were put up for identification. In the present case, there is the evidence of P. W. 15 Shri Jalamsingh to the effect that when P.W. 9 Premsingh had brought the accused-persons after arresting them both of them were "baparda". In the present case, there is the evidence of P. W. 15 Shri Jalamsingh to the effect that when P.W. 9 Premsingh had brought the accused-persons after arresting them both of them were "baparda". P. W. 15 Shri Jalamsingh has also stated that he had kept the accused person "baparda" and that he had given instructions to keep their faces covered all the time. Shri Jalamsingh has further stated that so long as the accused-persons were in his custody, they remained "baparda" all the times and that he had sent them in judicial custody while they were "baparda". Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination of Shri Jalamsingh or in the evidence of other witnesses to throw doubt on the aforesaid evidence of Shri Jalamsingh. In the circumstances, it must be held that appellant Kishanlal, after his arrest on November 11, 1976 was kept "baparda" while he was in police custody as well as in judicial custody, till he was put up for identification by the witnesses on November 18, 1976 and December 2, 1976. 24. With regard to the conduct of the identification proceedings, Mr. Doongarsingh has urged that accused-appellant Kishanlal was put up for identification by 3 witnesses on November 18, 1976 but on that date, he was not put up for identification by the main eye-witnesses, namely Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P. W. 4), Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P. W. 5), Indermal (P. W. 8) and Khimchand (P. W. 12) and that he was put up for identification by these witnesses after a lapse of 15 days on December 2, 1976 and that the prosecution has not offered any explanation for not putting up appellant Kishanlal for identification by these witnesses on November 18,1976. It is no doubt true that the accused-person should be put up for identification by the witnesses at the earliest opportunity and since appellant Kishanlal was being put up for test identification by some of the witnesses on November 18, 1976, the prosecution ought to have put up appellant for identification by the other witnesses also unless, due to some reason, it was not possible for the other witnesses to be produced for the purpose of identifying appellant Kishanlal on November 18, 1976. In the present case, the prosecution has not shown as to why it was not possible to get appellant Kishanlal identified on November 18, 1976 by the other witnesses before whom he was put up for identification on December 2, 1976. Since, we have held that during the period from November 18, 1976 to December 2, 1976 adequate pre cautions had been taken for keeping appellant "baparda", we are of the opinion that much significance can not be attached to this failure on the point of the prosecution to put up appellant Kishanlal for identification by all the witnesses on November 18, 1976 and the evidence with regard to identification held on December 2, 1976 can not be rejected on this ground. 25. Mr. Doongarsingh has also submitted that at the time of recording of the first information report (Ex.P5), the description that was given by the infor-ment Indermal (P.W. 8), of the other unknown accused, was that he was dark in complexion, was of average built and medium in stature. The submission of Mr. Doongarsingh was that the aforesaid description does not apply to appellant Kishanlal for the reason that his complexion is fair and not dark. In this regard, Mr. Doongarsingh has invited our attention to the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) and Khimchand (P.W. 12), who have stated that appellant Kishanlal was fair in complexion. The complexion of a person is a matter of degree and assessment about the complexion may differ from person to person. In the present case, the complexion of appellant Kishanlal, as given by P.W.8 Indermal on the date of his examination before the trial court was whea-ish. P.W. 8 Indermal has also stated that there was some change in the complexion of appellant Kishanlal during the period, he had last seen him on the date of the incident. The fact that the complexion of appellant Kishanlal was dark at the time of the incident, as stated in the first information report is borne out by the memo of arrest (Ex.P. 11), wherein the complexion of appellant Kishanlal at the time of his arrest on November 11, 1976 has been mentioned as dark. The fact that the complexion of appellant Kishanlal was dark at the time of the incident, as stated in the first information report is borne out by the memo of arrest (Ex.P. 11), wherein the complexion of appellant Kishanlal at the time of his arrest on November 11, 1976 has been mentioned as dark. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the evidence with regard to the identification of appellant Kishanlal can not be rejected on the ground that according to the description given in the first information report, the complexion of appellant Kishanlal is said to be dark, whereas during the course of the trial some of the witnesses have deposed that his complexion was fair. 26. Apart from the evidence about identification, the other evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution as against appellant Kishanlal is with regard to the recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 1) from the unbuilt Dharamshala near village Leta vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 16) on the basis of information (Ex. P. 18) given by appellant Kishanlal. As regards the aforesaid recovery, the submission of Mr. Doongarsingh was that according to the evidence of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W.4), Indermal (P.W. 8) and Khimchand (P.W. 12), the gold chains had been snatched from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW 4) by appellant Karnidan, and that since the gold chain (Ex. 1) which weighs 5 tolos and 5 anas, had been snatched by appellant Karnidan it was highly improbable that he would part with the said gold chain and hand it over to appellant Kishanlal and, therefore, the evidence with regard to the recovery of the gold chain (Ex. 1) at the instance of appellant Kishanlal should not be accepted. In this regard, Mr. Doongarsingh has also submitted that in the first information report (Ex.p.4), there is a mention of removal of one gold chain only from the person of P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and that the prosecution has later on come forward with the case that the two gold chains had been removed from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW 4). It is no doubt true that the F.I.R. does not specifically a mention that the two gold chains, were snatched from the person of P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal. It is no doubt true that the F.I.R. does not specifically a mention that the two gold chains, were snatched from the person of P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal. But at the time of lodging the report (Ex.P.4) and preparation of the F.I.R. Jaggaram (P.W. 6), Head Constable, had recorded a note below the first information report, which bears signatures of Indermal (PW 8) and contains the description of the other unknown accused and in the said note, it is further mentioned that. <span class="Hfont">^^Hkwjey th vkSjr ds xys esa tks lksus dh psus Fkh mudk otu oks gh crk ldrh gSA** The words "CHAINE" and "UNKA" in the aforesaid note would show that according P. W. 8 Indermal. there were more than one chain, which were snatched from the person of P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal. It can not, therefore, be said that according to the first information report, only one chain of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW 4) had been snatched. The first information report when read with the note appended below i.e. on the other hand, lends support to the case of the prosecution that two chains had been removed from the person of P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal. 27. As regards the other contention of Mr. Doongarsingh that the chain (Ex. 1) had been snatched by appellant Karnidan and there is no reason why it should have been recovered from the possession of appellant Kishanlal, it may observed that in all three chains had been snatched in the incident. The gold chain (Ex. 1) weighs 5 tolas and 5 anas, gold chain (Ex. 2) weighs about 1-1/2 tolas and gold chain (Ex. 3) weighs about 3 tolas. Gold chains (Exs. 1 and 2) are said to have been snatched by appellant Karnidan from the person of P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and gold chain (Ex. 3) is said to have been snatched by appellant Kishanlal from the person of PW. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal. Gold chains (Exs. 2 and 3) have, however, been recovered from the possession of or at the instance of appellant Karnidan and gold chain (Ex.1) has been recovered at the instance of appellant Kishanlal. The combined weight of the gold chains (Exs. 2 and 3), which were recovered from appellant Karnidan was about 4-1/2 tolas. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal. Gold chains (Exs. 2 and 3) have, however, been recovered from the possession of or at the instance of appellant Karnidan and gold chain (Ex.1) has been recovered at the instance of appellant Kishanlal. The combined weight of the gold chains (Exs. 2 and 3), which were recovered from appellant Karnidan was about 4-1/2 tolas. It is not unlikely that after the occurrence, both the accused persons may have distributed the booty in a way that gold chain (Ex.1) was taken by appellant Kishanlal. Therefore, merely because the gold chain (Ex. 1), which was snatched from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (P.W. 4) by appellant Karnidan, was recovered at the instance of appellant Kishanlal, would not mean that the aforesaid recovery is fake and should not be acted upon. The recovery of the aforesaid gold chain (Ex.1) has been proved by PW, 13 Okharam the attesting witness of the recovery memo (Ex.P. 16). Nothing has been brought out in his statement during cross-examination to throw doubt on his testimony. The gold chain (Ex. 1), which was recovered at the instance of appellant Kishanlal, has been identified as belonging to by Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal (PW 4) as well as by her son, Bhanwar-lal (PW 3) at the identification proceedings, which was conducted by Shri Padamsingh (PW 14) on December 3, 1976 vide memo Ex.P.3 and the said identification proceedings have been proved by P.W. 14 Shri Padamsingh. 28. With regard to the proceedings for the identification of the gold chains, which were conducted by P.W. 14 Shri Padamsingh vide memo Ex. P.3, the submission of Mr. Doongarsingh was that in the memo Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that the gold chain (Ex 1) had been recovered from the possession of appellant Karnidan and according to the memo Ex. P.9 some other gold chain is said to have been recovered from the possession of appellant Kishanlal. We have perused the memos Ex.P. 3 and Ex. P. 9 relating to the identification of the gold chains which were prepared by P.W. 14 Shri Padamsingh after conducting the identification proceedings on December 3, 1976. There appears to be some error in memos Ex.P,3 and Ex. P. 9 wherein gold chain (Ex 1) has been shown as having been recovered from the possession of appellant. The aforesaid error in the memos of identification (Ex. There appears to be some error in memos Ex.P,3 and Ex. P. 9 wherein gold chain (Ex 1) has been shown as having been recovered from the possession of appellant. The aforesaid error in the memos of identification (Ex. P. 3 and P.9) in the description of the gold chains, which were recovered from the possession of the appellant Kishanlal and appellant Karnidan would not believe the other evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution, namely, the recovery memo (Ex. p. 16) and the testimony of P.W. 1.3 Okharam, the attesting witness of the recovery memo, which show that the gold chain (Ex. 1) weighing 5 tolas and 5 anas had been recovered at the instance of appellant Kishanlal. 29. In our opinion, therefore, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established that appellant Kishanlal was the unknown person referred to in the F. I. R., who had accompanied appellant Karnidan to the house of Bhanwarlal (P. W. 3) and he had assisted appellant Karnidan in snatching the two gold chains from the person of P.W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and had himself snatched the gold chain (Ex.3) from the person of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal (P.W.5). 30. The next question, which arises for consideration is with regard to the offences that can be said to have been committed by the appellants. In so far as the appellant Karnidan is concerned, it has been established from the evidence of P.W.4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal, P.W. 8 Indermal and P.W. 12 Khimchand that he had fired the gun at deceased Mohandas, which resulted in death of Mohandas and from the evidence of the post-mortem report as well as the evidence of Dr. Kotwani, it is established that the death was caused as a result of the aforesaid gun shot injury. From the evidence of PW. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal, P.W. 8 Indermal and P.W. 12 Khimchand, it is further established that appellant Karnidan had entered the house of Bhanwardan with the object of committing robbery and that appellant Karnidan had snatched the gold chains from the person of PW 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and had also assisted appellant Kishanlal in snatching the gold chain from the person of P.W. 5 Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal. Appellant Karnidan has, therefore, been rightly convicted of the offences under sections 302, 448, 394/397, I.P.C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act. 31. As regards appellant Kishanlal, it has been submitted by Mr. Doongarsingh that all that can be said is that the said appellant had entered the house of Bhanwarlal along with appellant Karnidan with the object of committing robbery and that robbery was committed in the said house by snatching of the gold chains of Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal and one gold chain of Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal and injury was caused to Mohandas deceased by appellant Karnidan with a gun and that appellant Kishanlal can only be convicted of the offences under sections 394/397 and 448, I.P.C. and that he can not be convicted of the offence under sec. 302/34, I.P.C. for murder of Mohandas inasmuch as, it can not be said that the appellant Kishanlal was sharing a common intention with appellant Karnidan for committing the murder of Mohandas and the murder of Mohandas was committed by appellant Karnidan in furtherance of the said common intention. 32. The Indian Penal Code makes a distinction between a case where murder is committed while committing dacoity and a case where, murder is committed while committing robbery. In a case where murder has been committed by any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, every one of those persons who are conjointly committing dacoity is punishable u/s 396 I.P.C. There is no similar provision with regard to cases where murder has been committed while committing robbery and in such a case, the person, who has participated in the commission of robbery but has not committed the murder, would be liable to be convicted for the offence of murder, under sec. 302, I.P.C. only with aid of S. 34, I.P.C. if the conditions for the applicability of S. 34 IPC are satisfied. 33. In so far as s. 34 I.P.C. is concerned, the position is well settled that it postulates the existence of a common intention between two or more persons and the criminal act for which liability is sought to be fastened under section 34 must be done in furtherance of the said common intention. Common intention has to be distinguished from same or similar intention. Common intention has to be distinguished from same or similar intention. For the purpose of establishing the existence of a common intention between two or more persons it is necessary to show that there was prior concert or prior meeting of minds and a prearranged plan The plan could arise and be formed suddenly. There may also be cases where the accused persons may start with a pre-arranged plan to commit a particular criminal offence and during the course of the occurrence they may arrive at a understanding to commit another offence as well. Since intention exists in the mind only, it is not possible to adduce direct evidence and the existence of a common intention has to be inferred from the conduct of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case. 34. In the present case, the circumstances, which have been brought on record, are that appellants Karnidan and Kishanlal came together to the house of P. W. 3 Bhanwarlal and at that time, appellant Karnidan was armed with a double barrel gun. After entering the house of Bhanwarlal the appellants met deceased Mohandas and appellant Karnidan asked Mohandas to show the wealth and when Mohandas expressed his inability to do so, appellant Karnidan fired the gun at him and the said shot fired by Karnidan, hit Mohandas as a result of which, he died. Thereafter P. W. 4 Smt. Mathra w/o Bhurmal entered the "pol" and both the appellants went near her and appellant Kishanlal kept his feet on her feet and appellant Karnidan snatched the two gold chains from her person. Thereafter Smt. Mathra w/o Indermal came and both the appellants went near her and appellant Karnidan caught hold of her and appellant Kishan Lal snatched the gold chain from her person and thereafter both the appellants came out of the house of Bhanwarlal and escaped On the basis of the facts and circumstances referred to above, there can be no dispute that when both the appellants had entered the house of Bhanwarlal they shared the common intention to commit robbery in the said house. The question is whether the appellant Kishanlal as well as appellant Karnidan had the common intention to commit murder while committing the robbery and the murder of Mohandas was committed by appellant Karnidan in furtherance of such a common intention. The question is whether the appellant Kishanlal as well as appellant Karnidan had the common intention to commit murder while committing the robbery and the murder of Mohandas was committed by appellant Karnidan in furtherance of such a common intention. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since appellant Karnidan was armed with a double barrel gun which was loaded, appellant Kishanlal should be imputed with the knowledge that the said gun would be used, if considered necessary, and since appellant Kishanlal had come with appellant Karnidan and had taken part in the robbery and had escaped along with appellant Karnidan it must be held that appellants Kishanlal and appellant Karnidan shared a common intention to commit murder during the course of committing the robbery and the murder of Mohandas was committed in furtherance of the said common intention. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. In our view, from the mere fact that appellant Karnidan was armed with a double barrel gun at the time when the appellants entered the house of Bhanwarlal, it is not possible to hold that appellant Kishanlal shared the common intention with appellant Karnidan that murder maybe committed while committing robbery. Appellant Kishanlal may have thought that the gun was being taken by appellant Karnidan with a view to over awe the occupants of the house and thus facilitate the commission of the robbery. There is nothing on the record to show that appellant Kishanlal did anything prior to or after the firing of the gun by appellant Karnidan to show that he approved the aforesaid action of the appellant Karnidan in firing the gun. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the gun was fired by the appellant Karnidan on his own and it cannot be said that the appellant Kishanlal and appellant Karnidan shared common intention that the gun would be used during the course of the commission of he robbery or it was fired by appellant Karnidan towards deceased Mohandas in furtherance of the said common intention. We are of the view that appellant Karnidan alone can be held responsible for his act of firing the gun on Mohandas which caused his death and appellant Kishanlal cannot be held vicariously responsible for the said act of appellant Karnidan under section 34 I.P.C. The conviction of the appellant Kishanlal for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. cannot therefore be upheld and must be set aside. 35. In the result, D.B. Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 251/77 filed by appellant Karnidan is dismissed and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 2 .5.77 convicting the said appellant of the offences under sections 302, 448, 394/397 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentences imposed on the said appellant for the aforesaid offences are affirmed. D.B. Cr. Appeal No, 471/78 filed by Kishanlal is partly allowed and his conviction for the offences under Sections 448 and 394/397 I.P.C. and the sentences imposed for the said offences, are affirmed. The conviction of appellant Kishanlal for the offence under section 302/34 and the sentence imposed on him for the said offence is set aside. The direction given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore that the sentences imposed on the appellants will run concurrently is maintained.