K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants in these three criminal appeals, heard analogously, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. for short) and were each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may be stated in brief. Kartikeswar (P. W. 3) and Gobinda, father of P. W. 6 are residents of village Rajnagar within Nilgiri Police Station. The members of both families went to bed in their respective houses in the night of 19. 6. 1982. Around midnight dacoits struck the house of Kartikeswar (P. W. 3) and forcibly broke open the front door despite resistance of the inmates of the house. When they entered inside, the inmates out of fear entered into the room of P. W. 4 Narahari and remained concealed. A lantern was burning inside. The dacoits, seven in number, broke open the door of that room and entered inside. All of them were armed with lath is and knives. They terrorised the inmates and injured (P. W. 1) Maheswar and P. W. 3 Kartikeswar and looted movables such as gold ornaments, radio and watch. One of the appellants named Sudhakar was previously known to the inmates of the house and so he was easily recognised. In the light of the lantern the other dacoits were also identified by the inmates of the house. After looting the house of Kartikeswar (P. W. 3), the dacoits invaded the house of Gobinda nearby. They struck on the front door and entered inside. They were similarly armed. A lantern was burning on the verandah of the house. In the light of the lantern the dacoits were identified by the inmates of the house. They terrorised the inmates and looted a large quantity of silver ornaments. After looting both the houses, the dacoits decamped. While dacoity was being committed, Gajendra (P. W. 10) went to Nilgiri Police Station and reported the incident. Station diary entry (Ext. 6) was made. A Police Officer rushed to the spot and commenced investigation. There was no trace of the dacoits. On 21. 6. 1982 the appellants were chased and arrested while they were proceeding on the salt road on Bicycles with bags and bundles. Huge quantity of looted property was found inside the bags and bundles and were seized by seizure lists (Exts. A Police Officer rushed to the spot and commenced investigation. There was no trace of the dacoits. On 21. 6. 1982 the appellants were chased and arrested while they were proceeding on the salt road on Bicycles with bags and bundles. Huge quantity of looted property was found inside the bags and bundles and were seized by seizure lists (Exts. 5 N 5/4, 5/10 and 5/il ). A. T. I. Parade was held in respect of persons and properties on 1. 6. 7. 1982. In the T. I. Parade some of the prosecution witnesses identified the appellants as the dacoits who committed dacoity in their respective houses. They also identified some items of property including gold and silver ornaments belonging to them which were looted in course of dacoity. After investigation was over, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for an offence under section 395 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellants before the trial court was a complete denial of their involvement in the dacoity. Appellant Sudhakar particularly pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case because of previous enmity relating to a dispute in connection with a Jatra party. With regard to identification, they all stated that prior to the T. I. Parade they were shown to the witnesses and accordingly the witnesses had no difficulty to identify them. ( 4 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 will show that in the night between 19. 6. 1982 and 20. 6. 1982 there was commission of dacoity in the houses of Kartikeswar (P. W. 3) and Gobinda, father of P. W. 6. All of them have given a vivid description as to how the dacoits forced their entry into their houses being armed with dangerous weapons, such as, lathis and knives, terrorised the inmates of the houses and looted valuable property including gold and silver ornaments. In view of their evidence the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the correct conclusion regarding commission of dacoity. This fact was not disputed during hearing of the case. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellants raised the following points: - (1) The appellants could not be identified by the inmates of the houses, particularly P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6 in the light of the lanterns burning inside. This fact was not disputed during hearing of the case. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellants raised the following points: - (1) The appellants could not be identified by the inmates of the houses, particularly P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6 in the light of the lanterns burning inside. Therefore, their evidence of identification of the appellants in court is of no avail and should be entirely rejected. (2) The T. I. Parade was conducted after delay of 26 days and so according to the settled principle of law, on account of delay, no value should be attached to the evidence of T. I. Parade. The contentions require careful examination with reference to the evidence on record. ( 6 ) APPELLANT Sudhakar belonged to a nearby village and was known to P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6 from before. They have clearly stated in their evidence that they knew appellant Sudhakar from before. Appellant Sudhakar in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that on account of a dispute relating to a Jatra party he was falsely implicated in this case. This shows the previous acquaintance of P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6 with appellant Sudhakar. Undoubtedly P. Ws. 1 and 4 were inmates of the house of P. W. 3, Kartikeswar. There was no difficulty to identify appellant Sudhakar in the light of the lantern which, according to their evidence, was burning inside the room. P. W. 3 Kartikeswar himself also knew appellant Sudhakar and saw him in the light of the lantern. In their evidence before the court all of them have stated that they could identify appellant Sudhakar in the light of the lantern and he was one amongst the dacoits. In view of the clear and unimpeachable evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, there is no room for doubt that appellant Sudhakar was one of the dacoits engaged in the commission of dacoity and looted valuable property from the houses of P. W. 3, Kartikeswar and Gobinda, father of P. W. 6. ( 7 ) IT is in the evidence that first of all the dacoits attacked the house of P. W. 3, Kartikes war and thereafter attacked the house of Gobinda, father of P. W. 6. In the house of Kartikeswar (P. W. 3) a lantern was burning inside the room where the inmates of the house had concealed. ( 7 ) IT is in the evidence that first of all the dacoits attacked the house of P. W. 3, Kartikes war and thereafter attacked the house of Gobinda, father of P. W. 6. In the house of Kartikeswar (P. W. 3) a lantern was burning inside the room where the inmates of the house had concealed. The dacoits entered inside the room and belaboured some of the inmates, such as P. Ws. 1 and 3 who were subsequently examined by the Medical Officer (P. W. 2) who found injuries of simple nature on their person as per Exts. 2 and 2/1. It was not difficult for the witnesses to identify the appellants in the light of the burning lantern, P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that he could identify all the appellants in the light of the burning lantern. He also identified all of them in the T. J. Parade. According to P. W. 4. he could identify only one person in the T. I. Parade, namely, appellant Murali. P. W. 6, son of Gobinda stated that a lantern was burning on the verandah of their house where the inmates were standing. He identified all the appellants except appellant Murali The evidence of these witnesses will thus show that it was possible for them to identify the appellants in the light of the burning lanterns inside their houses and subsequently all of them identified the appellants in the T. I. Parade which was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate (P. W. 12) whose evidence was not challenged during cross-examination. In view of the unassailable evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6, considered along with other evidence, it is difficult to disbelieve and discard the prosecution case. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that the appellants were properly identified at the time of commission of dacoity, as well as, in the T. I. Parade shows their complicity in the heinous crime. ( 8 ) THE occurrence took place on 20-6-1982 and the appellants were arrested on 21-6-1982. The T. I. Parade was conducted on 16-7-1982 According to learned counsel for the appellants, there was delay in conducting the T. I. Parade and so the evidence of identification should be discarded. ( 8 ) THE occurrence took place on 20-6-1982 and the appellants were arrested on 21-6-1982. The T. I. Parade was conducted on 16-7-1982 According to learned counsel for the appellants, there was delay in conducting the T. I. Parade and so the evidence of identification should be discarded. It appears from the record of the committing Magistrate that the investigating officer made a prayer for conducting the T. I. Parade on 24-6-1982 and order was passed on 29-6-1982 for production of the arrested appellants for the purpose of T. I. Parade. They were produced on 14-7-1982 and the T. I. Parade took place on 16-7-1982. Reference was made to three decisions, two of which are reported in Madhu alias Allauddin Mian v. State and Ghanashyam Das and others v. The State. In the earlier case the T. I. Parade was performed more than one month after the occurrence. In the second case there was delay of about two and half months. In an unreported decision in State v. Damodar Bank, the T. I. Parade was performed 27 days after arrest, but about 2 months after the occurrence took place. In view of the peculiar facts of these cases it was held that there was delay in holding the T. I. Parade and so the evidence of test-identification was discarded. In Babul Pal v. State the T. I. Parade was conducted 23 days after the dacoity took place and it was ruled that the T. I. Parade was held not long after the occurrence. Thus, whether the T. I. Parade is performed long after the occurrence or not will differ from case to case. In the present case, the T. I. Parade was held as early as possible after completion of the legal formalities and so the evidence of test-identification cannot be thrown over board as being valueless and useless. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants laid great stress about illegality of seizure of a large number of stolen items, such as, gold and silver ornaments and a radio. It appears from the evidence of the investigating officer (P. W. 11) that he took along with him two seizure witnesses including P. W. 9 from Nilgiri when he set off in a vehicle in search of the dacoits. It is also in evidence that at the time of seizure there were some outsiders of nearby places. It appears from the evidence of the investigating officer (P. W. 11) that he took along with him two seizure witnesses including P. W. 9 from Nilgiri when he set off in a vehicle in search of the dacoits. It is also in evidence that at the time of seizure there were some outsiders of nearby places. But they refused to be witnesses to the seizure. In such circumstances, P. W. 9 and another became seizure- witnesses. I fail to see any reasonable ground to discard the evidence of P. W. 9 for the simple reason that he had accompanied the investigating officer in a vehicle when he went in search of the dacoits. Therefore, I find no illegality in the seizure of stolen articles. ( 10 ) P. W. 4. identified three items of goods stolen from his house namely, a radio, a gold chain and a gold ring. P. W. 7, wife of Gobinda identified a large number of silver ornaments seized from the dacoits. No irregularity was pointed out with regard to the T. I. Parade of property conducted by the Judicial Magistrate (P. W. 12 ). ( 11 ) AFTER carefully going through the evidence which was placed in extenso by the learned counsel appearing for both parties, I am convinced that the appellants committed dacoity and were properly identified by P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of conviction passed by him must have to be upheld. In view of the fact that it was a case of daring dacoity in two houses in a village in the district of Balasore where a large number of dacoities take place, the sentence does not warrant interference. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence are affirmed. Appeals dismissed. .