G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THESE four appeals by four different convicts are directed against their convictions and sentences passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No. 19-A of 1981 and since all these appeals are directed against the same judgment and common questions of fact and law are involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Six known accused persons along with two other unknown persons were charged under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoity in the house of the informant Biswanath (P. W. 1) on 25. 5. 81 at night. Accused Sadasiba was charged under Section 412, I. P. C. for having dishonestly received stolen gold ornaments having reason to believe that the same are the stolen properties. Of these seven persons, accused Biswanath and Sadasiba have been acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Of the remaining five accused persons accused Nenkuri Lokanath has not preferred any appeal but the remaining four persons have preferred the four criminal appeals from the Jail. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 25. 5. 81 the informant (P. W. 1), his wife Susama (P. W. 3) and his father Kandarpa (P. W. 4) went to bed along with some other inmates of the house. P W. 1 was sleeping outside the house. When P. W. 4 was in. the front door of the house and the other inmates in the courtyard, at 9 p. m. , P. W. 1 heard some sound and suddenly woke up. He found tea culprits focusing torch light towards him. When he challenged, the culprits demanded from him the unlicensed gun. Then one of them tied his hands by a rope and three of them guarded him. Rest of the accused persons entered inside the house forcibly and tied his father (P. W. 4 ). Thereupon the dacoits ransacked the house by searching for valuables and ultimately decamped with some gold ornaments, some sarees, some Dhotis, and cash of Rs. 875/ -. P. W. 1 did not leave the house. Rest of the accused persons entered inside the house forcibly and tied his father (P. W. 4 ). Thereupon the dacoits ransacked the house by searching for valuables and ultimately decamped with some gold ornaments, some sarees, some Dhotis, and cash of Rs. 875/ -. P. W. 1 did not leave the house. P. W. 1 was so much perplexed that he did not go to the police station in the night nor even on the next day, but waited till 27-5-81 when he learnt that the Officer-in-charge of Jarpada P. S. had come to a nearby village for investigation into another dacoity case and P. W. 1 went there and lodged the first information report (Ext. 1 ). The Officer-in charge, Jarpada P. S. (P. W. 18) registered a case and started investigation. After completion of investigation, P. W. 18 filed the charge sheet. Thereafter on being committed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate the accused persons were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons is one of denial. According to the defence version no dacoity had taken place in the home of P. W. 1 in the night of occurrence and the accused persons have been falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 18 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the informant and he along with P. Ws. 3 and 4 who are all inmates of the house are eye-witnesses to the occurrence P. W. 2 is the Medical Officer, Jarpada Hospital, who had examined P. W. 1 on police requisition; P. W. 5 is a seizure witness; P. Ws. 7 and 8 are supposed to be the pre-occurrence witnesses who saw the accused persons in the evening moving near about the place of occurrence. P. Ws 6, 9 and 12 are supposed to be the witnesses to the fact that accused Nenkuri led the police while in custody to give discovery of some of the stolen articles; P. Ws. 10, 11 and 15 are witnesses to the seizure of gold ornaments on production by accused Sadasiba and P Ws. 13 and 14 are also witnesses to the seizure of stolen clothes; P W. 16 is the Finger Print Expert who examined the seized glass tumbler and his report is Ext. 10, 11 and 15 are witnesses to the seizure of gold ornaments on production by accused Sadasiba and P Ws. 13 and 14 are also witnesses to the seizure of stolen clothes; P W. 16 is the Finger Print Expert who examined the seized glass tumbler and his report is Ext. 13; P. W. 17 is the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of the accused Alekha and who also held the Test Identification Parade of the suspects as well as the stolen articles recovered, and P. W. 18 is the Investigating Officer. ( 5 ) THE defence also examined two witnesses mainly on the question that Alekba and Subudhi were shown to the witnesses before the T. I. Parade. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge, on examination of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that a dacoity did take place on the night of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and also convicted the present appellants on a finding that these appellants did take part in the commission of the dacoity. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo R. T. for eight years. Each of these appeals, though preferred from jail, were argued by different counsel, each counsel contending that the evidence against their clients do not justify the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, it would be necessary to examine the individual cases separately. ( 7 ) COMING to the criminal appeal No. 114/82, the appellant Kulamani has been represented by Shri S. K. Padhi, the learned counsel. In the T. I. Parade that was conducted on 17. 6. 81 by P. W. 17, though P. W. 1 identified some of the accused persons but did not identify the appellant-Kulamani. Even in Court also P. W. 1 did not identify the appellant-Kulamani as one of the participants in the occurrence. P. W. 3 also does not identify any of the accused persons in Court. P. W. 1 like P. W. 3 did not identify the appellant-Kulamani. Thus the identification evidence is nil so far as the appellant-Kulamani is concerned. The only evidence which the learned trial Judge has accepted against Kulamani are (1) confessional statement of co-accused Nenkuri Lokanath and (ii) the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 13. P. W. 1 like P. W. 3 did not identify the appellant-Kulamani. Thus the identification evidence is nil so far as the appellant-Kulamani is concerned. The only evidence which the learned trial Judge has accepted against Kulamani are (1) confessional statement of co-accused Nenkuri Lokanath and (ii) the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 13. So far as the confessional statement of the co-accused is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the confessional statement can only lend assurance to a conviction, which is otherwise recorded and cannot form the basis of conviction. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law. The confessional statement of co-accused is Ext. 14. Mr. Padhi, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the said confessional statement not having been put to the appellant-Kulamani in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever. I find from the records that it has not been put to the appellant. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the prosecution fairly conceded that in this view of the matter, the confessional statement of the co-accused is of no assistance to the prosecution in bringing home the charge against the accused-appellant. ( 8 ) COMING to the statement of P. W. 7 it appears that he identified the accused Kulamani in Court and stated that he along with two others, namely, Nenkuri and Judhistir got down from the Bus and enquired from him as to where the Nala is situate and this happened during sun-set time on the date of occurrence. In his evidence though he stated that he was called to identify the person in a T. I. Parade where he identified Kulamani, but neither any T. I. Parade report has been produced nor is there any prosecution evidence in support of this assertion of P. W. 7. Consequently this part of the statement of P. W. 7 must be discarded. In his cross-examination P. W. 7 stated that he had no previous acquaintance with any of the accused persons prior to the date of occurrence. In that view of the matter, it is not humanly possible for a man to remember the face of a person who got down from a bus ten months prior to his date of examination in Court. In that view of the matter, it is not humanly possible for a man to remember the face of a person who got down from a bus ten months prior to his date of examination in Court. Thus the so-called identification of the appellant by P. W. 7 in Court is of no consequence. That apart, the fact that Kulamani was seen by him on the date of occurrence few hours prior to the occurrence is equally of no significance in bringing home the charge against Kulamani. In my view, therefore, the evidence of P. W. 7 does not in any way assist the prosecution in bringing home the charge against Kulamani. The only other piece of evidence, which has been used by the learned trial Judge in convicting the appellant-Kulamani is the statement of P. W. 13. P. W. 13 stated that Kulamani is her uncles son and further stated in Court that on a particular day Kulamani came with a bag and left the same which contained one Chadar, three Sarees and one torch light. These articles were seized by the police on being produced by the husband of P. W. 13 as he suspected them to be the stolen properties. There is no corroborative evidence to the statements of this witness and it would be highly hazardous to rely on such statement whi. ch has the tendency of excluding herself from the crime. It is just possible that when certain stolen properties have been recovered she might have tried falsely to rope in Kulamani. A bare reading of the evidence of P. W. 13 does not inspire any confidence and in my view, P. W. 13 cannot be relied upon. There is no other evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant-Kulamani. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellantkulamani is wholly unwarranted in as much as the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against him. In conclusion, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against accused Kulamani are hereby set aside and accused-Kulamani is set at liberty forthwith. Jail Criminal Appeal No. 114/82, is, therefore, allowed. ( 9 ) COMING to the next appeal, namely, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 115/82 the appellant is one Subudhi Naik. P. W. 1 has identified the appellant Subudhi both in the T. I. Parade as well as in the Court. Mr. Jail Criminal Appeal No. 114/82, is, therefore, allowed. ( 9 ) COMING to the next appeal, namely, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 115/82 the appellant is one Subudhi Naik. P. W. 1 has identified the appellant Subudhi both in the T. I. Parade as well as in the Court. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, seriously contends that the evidence of P. W. 1 discloses that in the T. I. Parade, he identified accused Lokanath, Judhistira and Alekha and, therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error of record by saying that he identified also Subudhi in the T. I. Parade. The Magistrate, P. W. 17 in his evidence categorically stated that P. W. 1 could identify the accused Nenkuri Lokanath, Alekha, Judhistira and Subudhi and Purusottam. Ext. 15 is the T. I. Parade report. The said report also unequivocally indicates that P. W. 1 did identify the accused Subudhi in the T. I. Parade. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Mohanty that P. W. 1 did not identify Subudhi in the T. I. Parade. Mr. Mohanty does not point out any infirmity in the T. I. Parade. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 1 clinches the issue on identification and it must be held that P. W. 1 identified the accused Subudhi both in the T. I. Parade as well as in Court. The identification of an accused in a case under section 395, I. P. C. is quite sufficient to bring home the charge of dacoity against the accused, if the said identification evidence is free from blemish and inspire confidence. Nothing has been pointed out by Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the appellant in the evidence of P. W. 1 so as to impeach his evidence of identification. That apart, there is another clinching evidence against the accused Subudhi, that is, the presence of the finger print of Subudhi on the glass tumbler (M. O. XII) which was seized from the house of the informant (P. W. 1) P. W. 5 testified that a glass tumbler containing finger prints was seized in his presence under seizure list, Ext. 3 and Ext. 3/1 is his signature. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 18) in his evidence stated that he seized one glass tumbler having finger prints in presence of witnesses as per Ext. 3 and Ext. 3/1 is his signature. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 18) in his evidence stated that he seized one glass tumbler having finger prints in presence of witnesses as per Ext. 3 and M. O. XII is the glass tumbler. He further stated that he sent a wireless message to the State Forensic Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, for deputing the Finger Print Expert for examination of the glass tumbler (M. O. XII) and on 3-6-81 the expert came and took the photograph of the finger print on M. O. XII. The expert has been examined as P. W. 16. His reports are Exts. 12 and 13. P. W. 16 has vividly described as to the steps taken by him for comparing the finger prints and ultimately came to the conclusion that on comparison it was found that the finger print which was on glass tumbler (M. O. XII) tallied with the right ring finger and right index finger impression of Subudhi Naik. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the Expert to discredit his evidence. On the other hand, the expert has stated that the science of finger print is an exact science. The value of the evidence of a finger print expert has been discussed fully by the Supreme Court in the case of Muralilal v. state of M. P. 1, and the Court has observed: TI The science of identification of finger prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent This decision has been relied upon in an earlier case of this Court reported in Padmanava Mohapatra v. The State2. This being the position of law, the existence of the finger prints of the accused Subudhi on the tumbler that was recovered from the place of occurrence is a clinching evidence against accused Subudhi to bring home the charge against him. In view of the aforesaid clinching materials, both the identification evidence as well as the existence of the thumb mark of Subudhi on the tumbler recovered from the house of the informant, the conviction of the appellant Subudhi remains unassailable and, therefore, the said criminal appeal No. 115/82 must be dismissed. ( 10 ) SO far as the appellant Judhistira in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 116/82 is concerned, the materials available against him is the identification of the appellant by P. W. 1 both in the T. 1. ( 10 ) SO far as the appellant Judhistira in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 116/82 is concerned, the materials available against him is the identification of the appellant by P. W. 1 both in the T. 1. Parade as well as in Court. P. W. 17 is the Magistrate who conducted the T. I. Parade and Ext. 15 is the T. I. Parade report of the Magistrate. The substantive evidence of identification in Court gets full assurance from the earlier T. I. Parade conducted by P. W. 17 wherein P. W. 1 did identify accused Judhistira. This by itself would have been sufficient to sustain the conviction of accused Judhistira. But I also find that there was recovery of the stolen articles M. Os. IV, VI, VII, IX and X from the house of Judhistira which were seized under seizure list, Ext. 9. P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the seizure witnesses and have testified the aforesaid seizure. The accused even in his 313, Cr. P. C. statement admitted the aforesaid recoveries from his house. These articles have been identified by the inmates of the house to be the stolen properties. In this view of the matter, the conviction of accused Judhistira under section 395, I. P. C. is unassailable. Mr. Naldu the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also could not point out any infirmity in the conviction of the said appellant, but the learned counsel, however, submits that the sentence may be reduced, as according to him, the sentence is too severe. But perusing the records of the case and on consideration I do not find the sentence awarded to be severe in any manner. I would, therefore, reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the result, therefore, the criminal appeal No. 116/ 52 is dismissed. ( 11 ) COMING to the last appeal, that is, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 117/82 the appellant is one Alekha. So far as Alekha is concerned, the confession of co-accused cannot be utilized since it has not been put to the appellant Alekha in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. The only evidence which can be utilized is the evidence of identification by PW. 1 in Court as well as in the Test Identification Parade. So far as Alekha is concerned, the confession of co-accused cannot be utilized since it has not been put to the appellant Alekha in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. The only evidence which can be utilized is the evidence of identification by PW. 1 in Court as well as in the Test Identification Parade. P. W. 1 in his evidence stated in the examination-in-chief; TIJ could identify accused Alekha as he was talking to me and demanded tobacco. I could also see him by the focus of the torch light flashed by the culprits. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that this statement of P. W. 1 cannot be accepted in law, since in his examination under section 161 Cr. P. C. during investigation he did not state so to the Investigating Officer. He has been duly confronted with his earlier version in accordance with section 145 of the Evidence Act and it has been elicited from the evidence of the 1. 0. , P. W. 18 that P. W. 1 did not state before him that accused Alekha talked with him and asked for tobacco from him. Undoubtedly this would be a material omission from the earlier version of the witness which to a great extent discredits his version in the Court. Admittedly Alekha was not known to P. W. 1 and, therefore, unless there is some special feature narrated by the identifying witness as to how he could identify him, the evidence is of no substance. The main feature which was responsible to enable the witness to identify the accused Alekha was that Alekha was talking to him and demanding tobacco. But that not having been stated in his earliest version, the identification evidence of P. W. 1 does not inspire confidence and it would be wholly hazardous to base a conviction of such identification evidence. In that view of the matter, in my opinion the conviction of appellant-Alekha cannot be sustained and. accordingly the conviction of the accused Alekha as well as the sentence passed there under are hereby set aside and he is set at liberty forthwith. Jail Criminal Appeal No. 1 17/82, is, therefore, allowed. In that view of the matter, in my opinion the conviction of appellant-Alekha cannot be sustained and. accordingly the conviction of the accused Alekha as well as the sentence passed there under are hereby set aside and he is set at liberty forthwith. Jail Criminal Appeal No. 1 17/82, is, therefore, allowed. ( 12 ) IN the net result, therefore, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 14/82 and Jail Criminal Appeal No. 17/82 are allowed and the appellants Kulamani and Alekha are set at liberty forthwith Jail Criminal Appeal Nos. 115/82 and 116/82 are dismissed and the conviction and sentences passed against the appellants Subudhi and Judhistira are affirmed. .