Judgment 1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1985(R), the two appellants are Kalipado Gope and Paramjeet Singh. Both of them have been convicted under S.395 of the Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1985(R), Shashi Shekhar Bhogta is the sole appellant. He has been convicted under S.412 of the Penal Code and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1985(R), the three appellants are Jadu Gope, Ram Singh Manjhi and Ignis Ekka. All the three appellants have been convicted under S.395 of the Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. In addition, Jadu Gope has also been convicted under S.412 of the Penal Code and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. In his case, the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. In the evening hours at about 8 p.m. of 3-5-1985 a dacoity took place in the shop of Arjun Lal Gupta. It was a grocery shop, named and styled as "Shankar Stores". It is situated at Plaza Market, Telco. It was alleged that certain miscreants variously armed with lethal weapons, such as Bhujali, pistol etc. entered the shop, disconnected the telephone wire, caused injuries to P. W. 4, the proprietor of the shop and P.W. 1, a servant employed in the shop. The miscreants took away cash amounting to Rs. 12,000.00 and also a scooter ring belonging to P.W. 4, on which the word Paras was inscribed. His wrist watch was also snatched away. After committing dacoity, a bomb was exploded at a distance of ten yards from the shop and the miscreants escaped. There were plenty of shops in the surrounding which were all open. Tube lights in the shops and the light on the road were burning. It was also learnt that the miscreants had also snatched another wrist watch from a resident of another Qr. No. R/143. The dacoity was committed for about 7-8 minutes and the miscreants were all among the age group of 20 to 30 years. Tube lights in the shops and the light on the road were burning. It was also learnt that the miscreants had also snatched another wrist watch from a resident of another Qr. No. R/143. The dacoity was committed for about 7-8 minutes and the miscreants were all among the age group of 20 to 30 years. The injured, Arjun Lal Gupta (P.W. 4) was taken to the hospital where his Fard-beyan was recorded at 9.30 p.m. and a formal first information report was drawn up. The place of occurrence, namely, "Shankar Stores" is located within a distance of 21/2 K.Ms. from TELCO T.O.P. The first information report was recorded against seven or eight unknown dacoits. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 31-5-1985 against six accused persons. Accused Ignes Ekka was shown as absconder. He was subsequently arrested and then a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 4-7-1985. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the appellants were put on trial. Before the Sessions Judge, charges were framed under Ss.395 and 412 of the Penal Code. It was read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence was a complete denial of the occurrence and false implication. 4. Out of the seven accused persons including the six appellants, co-accused Lobin Bhomij was acquitted of the charges because in his case, there was no identification. As against others, the learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 5. In their examination under S.313 of the Criminal P.C., they denied the charges levelled against them. From the trend of cross-examination and suggestions given to the witnesses, the defence of the appellants appears to be that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) got them identified by the witnesses either in the police lock up at the police station or at the time of remand by the Court or in Jamshedpur Jail prior to holding of the test identification parade. 6. The material witnesses are P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are employees of the proprietor of the shop (P.W. 4). According to P.W. 1, there was sufficient light in the shop at the time when the dacoity was committed. 6. The material witnesses are P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are employees of the proprietor of the shop (P.W. 4). According to P.W. 1, there was sufficient light in the shop at the time when the dacoity was committed. The street light was also burning. In other shops as well, which are located around the shop in question, the electric light was also burning. Therefore, P.W. 1 had full opportunity to see the faces of the culprits from a close distance. They were unknown dacoits and had not put any clothes on their faces. According to him, the incident was over within 5 to 7 minutes and he could see their faces. He had also sustained injuries inflicted by a Bhujali. The other employee (P.W. 2) has fully corroborated the statement of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 was another employee in the shop who was in the same position as P.W. 1. He is categoric in his statement about the sufficiency of the electric light in the shop and around the shop. P.W. 2 saw the injury inflicted on Dilip Singh (P.W 1). Both P.Ws. are also consistent in their statement as to how Bhujali blow was inflicted on the head of P. W. 4, their proprietor. On account of the injury the blood found on the floor of the shop also supports their statement. P.W. 4, the informant of this case, corroborated the statement recorded in the Fard-beyan. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was also corroborated by him on all material particulars. He has stated about the injury caused to him on his head by means of a Bhujali. The detail of the occurrence has been fully described by him that one dacoit removed the cash, a key ring from his pocket and his wrist watch. At the time of commission of the dacoity, two miscreants were also standing outside the shop. After the miscreants left the place, many persons collected at the shop and he was taken to the hospital where his Fard-beyan was recorded. The informant (P.W. 4) said that although he had not counted the cash and the sale proceeds etc. of that day but he claimed that the cash amounting to Rs.10,000.00 to Rs. 12,000.00 was taken away. After the miscreants left the place, many persons collected at the shop and he was taken to the hospital where his Fard-beyan was recorded. The informant (P.W. 4) said that although he had not counted the cash and the sale proceeds etc. of that day but he claimed that the cash amounting to Rs.10,000.00 to Rs. 12,000.00 was taken away. He remembered that one of the customers had given him a 100 rupee note which was in a torn condition and having pointed it out to the customer, it was promised that if necessity will arise, the customer will replace it. Sufficiency of electric light in his shop and in the neighbouring shops including the electric light on the street was categorically stated by him. Thus, according to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4, they are consistent on the genesis and the manner of occurrence as to how the miscreants variously armed with lethal weapons entered the shop, two of them were guarding outside the shop and as to how the injuries were caused to P.Ws. 1 and 4, the informant. How the cash money and the scooter ring were taken away has been fully described in their statement which is consistent. No infirmity in their evidence has been pointed out regarding the genesis and manner of occurrence alleged by them. All the three witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the faces of the dacoits who had not put any veil over their faces. The injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2 in this occurrence has been fully corroborated by the Medical Officer of the TELCO Hospital (P.W. 3). The Doctor found that the injury was fresh and had been caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon, such as Bhujali. The injury had been caused within half an hour of the occurrence and the injury report (Ext. D) has been proved. According to P.W. 1 he did not get his injury examined. 7. P.W. 9, the Officer-in-charge of TELCO P. S., investigated this case. He received a telephonic message about the commission of the dacoity in "Shankar Stores "at about 8.30 p.m. on 3-5-1985. D) has been proved. According to P.W. 1 he did not get his injury examined. 7. P.W. 9, the Officer-in-charge of TELCO P. S., investigated this case. He received a telephonic message about the commission of the dacoity in "Shankar Stores "at about 8.30 p.m. on 3-5-1985. He made a station diary entry and proceeded to the place of occurrence but on the way he learnt that the injured (P.W. 4) had been admitted in the hospital, and, therefore, he went to the hospital, recorded the Fard-beyan of P.W. 4 and examined the injuries of the informant. He then inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Between 6-5-1985 to 9-5-1985, six accused persons were apprehended and the looted properties were recovered from the possession of five accused persons. After recovery, the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) prepared seizure lists (Exts. 9 series). The signatures of the various accused persons were taken on the seizure lists which were marked as Exts. 7/1,7/2 and 7/3 and the seizure lists were marked as Exts. 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4. He also proved the petitions filed in the court for holding the test identification parade of the suspects. They have been marked as Exts. B,C,D and E. 8. The test identification parade was held by the Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 8). The first test identification parade of the suspects was held on 11-5-1985 but the second test identification parade was held relating to one suspect, Ignes Ekka, on 4-7-1985, because after commission of the dacoity, he was absconding. P.W. 9 has stated that he surrendered in Court only on 12-6-1985. In that situation, the second test identification parade was held after two months of the occurrence. Both the test identification charts, namely, Ext. 4 and Ext. 4/1 were proved by the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.8) who conducted the test identification parades. He also proved the test identification chart (Ext. 5) held in respect of the seized articles. According to him, he had been informed by the Bench clerk that the identifying witnesses had come to Court and he, therefore, directed them to proceed to jail. He has stated that at the jail gate, the investigating officer had introduced him to the three identifying witnesses. Likewise, the witnesses had also come to Court on 4-7-1985 for the purpose of identification and he had directed them to proceed to jail. He has stated that at the jail gate, the investigating officer had introduced him to the three identifying witnesses. Likewise, the witnesses had also come to Court on 4-7-1985 for the purpose of identification and he had directed them to proceed to jail. According to the Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 8), the informant (P.W. 4) had identified a currency note of the denomination of Rs. 100 as also the scooter ring. The articles were recovered from the possession of appellant, Jaddu Gope, appellant, Ram Singh Manjhi, appellant Paramjit Singh, appellant Kali Pado Gope and appellant Shashi Shekhar Bhogta. Currency notes of different denominations were recovered from the possession of the accused persons except appellant Shashi Shekhar Bhogta. It is strange, that none of the appellants claimed the recovered property as their own. They also failed to explain the possession of the recovered articles. It cannot be overlooked that the dacoity was committed on 3-5-1985 and the recovery was made within six to seven days from the possession of these appellants. No explanation, whatsoever, was offered by any one of these appellants in respect of possession of the recovered articles. In the test identification parade held for identification of the articles, P.W. 4 identified a scooter ring and P.W. 7 identified one HMT Vivek wrist watch. The scooter ring was recovered from the possession of appellant Jaddu Gope and HMT wrist watch was recovered from the possession of appellant Shashi Shekhar Bhogta. In absence of any explanation regarding possession of the articles recovered, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that the witnesses falsely identified them. The evidence of P.W. 4, that he identified the material Ext. II, a one hundred rupee note in the test identification parade and also the scooter ring (Material Ext. III) could not be assailed and there is no discrepancy in his statement on the point of identification. He has clearly stated that Ext. II, a one hundred rupee note, was in torn condition but the torn portion of the left side of Material Ext. II had been repaired with a thin transparent piece of paper rendering the number feasible for identification and therefore, I find no discrepancy in the statements either of P.W. 4 or P.W. 7 on the point of identification of the recovered articles. II had been repaired with a thin transparent piece of paper rendering the number feasible for identification and therefore, I find no discrepancy in the statements either of P.W. 4 or P.W. 7 on the point of identification of the recovered articles. It has to be kept in mind that the accused persons never claimed those articles as their own and no explanation whatsoever was submitted in regard to the possession of the recovered articles. The contention that none of the neighbouring witnesses were examined is without any merit. The consistent evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 is that all other witnesses had arrived at the scene of occurrence only after the dacoits had left the place. The occurrence was over within 7 to 8 minutes and no one from the neighbouring shops had come to the place of occurrence during that night. In such a situation, no purpose would have been served by examining those persons who had arrived at the place of occurrence only after the incident was over. 9. The next contention raised about the suggestions given to the witnesses on behalf of the appellants that the Investigating Officer got the accused persons identified to the witnesses either in the police lock-up at the police station or at the time of remand by the Court or in the Jamshedpur Jail prior to the holding of the test identification parade, has also to be rejected. According to P.W. 1, in the evening of 10-5-1985 a notice had been received by him as also by P.Ws. 4 and 2 to attend the test identification parade. They went to the police station on 11-5-1985, then came to the Court and, thereafter, they all went to the Magistrate for the test identification parade. His statement is categoric that none of the accused had come to the Court on that date and he had not seen any one of them in Court. He had also not seen any one of them at the jail gate. The suggestions put to him that on 11-5-1985 the Investigating Officer had brought the identifying witnesses in Court and got the accused persons identified was firmly denied by him. It is apparent from Ext. B dated 7-5-1985 and Exts. C and D that the two accused persons were forwarded on 7-5-1985, one was forwarded on 8-5-1985 and three were forwarded on 10-5-1985. It is apparent from Ext. B dated 7-5-1985 and Exts. C and D that the two accused persons were forwarded on 7-5-1985, one was forwarded on 8-5-1985 and three were forwarded on 10-5-1985. There is nothing on the record to show that P.W. 1 along with other identifying witnesses was present in Court on any one of these three dates. Likewise, nothing has been put on the record to show that P.W. 1 was present at the police station when accused Kali Pado Gope, Paramjit Singh and Shashi Shekhar Bhokta were under lock-up. However, they were forwarded on 10-5-1985 and out of these three accused persons, P.W. 1 identified only two of them and did not identify Shashi Shekhar Bhokta. That is a strong circumstance to eliminate the suggestion that they had been shown either at the police station or in the Court. Had it been so, there was no reason why P.W. 1 would have identified only two out of three suspects. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has stated that he remanded the accused persons as and when they were apprehended. P.W. 9 came to the Court in connection with this case for the first time on 11-5-1985 when a petition had been filed by him for identification of the suspects. Ext. E dated 11-5-1985 is the carbon copy of the petition to hold the test identification parade of the five accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly recorded that according to P.W. 9, the Investigating Officer, Ext. B dated 7-5-1985 was sent to the Court through a Havildar, Sheo Charan Bhuiyan and constable Satyender Singh at 11.40 hours. Ext. C dated 8-5-1985 was also sent to the Court through the said Havildar and a constable at 1.30 hours and Ext. D dated 11-5-1985 was also sent to the Court through a Havildar and a constable, Brajnandan at 17.15 hours. Therefore, it is obvious that after apprehension of the dacoits and prior to the holding of the test identification parade of the suspects, the Investigating Officer did not come to the Court and, in fact, for the first time, he came to the Court only on 11-5-1985. Thus, there was no possibility of getting the accused persons identified through the witnesses in Court by the Investigating Officer. Thus, there was no possibility of getting the accused persons identified through the witnesses in Court by the Investigating Officer. There is no evidence to show that the witnesses had visited the police station at the time when the accused persons were in the lock-up. In this view, the suggestion that the Investigating Officer got the accused persons identified to the identifying witnesses either at the police station or at the time of remand has to be rejected. 10. According to P.W.9, the test identification parade in respect of appellant, Ignis Ekka was held on 4-7-1985, in which he was identified by P.W. 1. Similar is the statement of P.W. 2 that after receiving notice to attend the test identification parade, the three identifying witnesses including him went to the Court along with the constable where he did not find the presence of Darogaji. Thereafter, the three identifying witnesses along with the Magistrate went to Jamshedpur Jail for identifying the accused persons. In the first test identification parade, he identified appellants Kali Pado Gope, Paramjit Singh, Ram Singh Manjhi and Shashi Shekhar Bhokta and in the second test identification parade held for the identification of Ignis Ekka, he identified him in the said test identification parade. Thus, P.W. 2 identified appellant Kali Pado Gope, appellant Paramjit Singh, appellant Ram Singh Manjhi and appellant Shashi Shekhar Bhokta. In the second identification parade, he identified appellant Ignis Ekka. He had the opportunity to observe the physical feature and the uncovered faces of the dacoits from a close distance. P.W. 4 identified appellant Kali Pado Gope, appellant Paramjit Singh and appellant Ram Singh Manjhi. He also identified these three appellants in Court. According to him also, there was enough light inside the shop and had ample opportunity to see the dacoits from a very close distance. Thus, the identity of the appellants as culprits who committed the dacoity in the shop was fully established by the identifying witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4. Appellant, Ram Singh Manjhi, appellant Paramjit Singh and appellant Kali Pado Gope were identified by three witnesses but appellant Ignis Ekka was identified by two witnesses and appellant Jaddu Gope was identified by one witness. 1,2 and 4. Appellant, Ram Singh Manjhi, appellant Paramjit Singh and appellant Kali Pado Gope were identified by three witnesses but appellant Ignis Ekka was identified by two witnesses and appellant Jaddu Gope was identified by one witness. There is no evidence and from the circumstances appearing in this case, there is not even the probability to hold that either in the police lock-up or at the time of production of the accused persons in Court for remand, there was any opportunity for identifying witnesses to have seen the accused persons. 11. The contention that the circumstances in which they were identified were not put to the accused persons in their examination under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. cannot be accepted. It is not necessary that all the natural probabilities and all reasonable inferences, such as might arise from the evidence, must be exhausted and put to the accused persons while recording their statement under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. The onus is upon the accused persons to prove that by reasons of his not having been examined as required by S.313 of the Criminal P.C. he has been prejudiced. No such prejudice has been caused to the accused persons in this case. They never raised any objection at the time when the test identification parade was held that they had been shown to the witnesses before they were put up for identification in the test identification parade. It was not so raised either at the time when they were examined under S.313 of the Criminal P.C. Therefore, it has not been shown as to how they were prejudiced. The identification was held after observing all the necessary requirements in law and no infirmity could be pointed out. 12. On careful consideration of the facts, circumstances and the evidence appearing in this case, I uphold the conviction of all the appellants under S.395 of the I.P.C. Further the conviction of appellant, Jaddu Gope and Shashi Shekhar Bhokta for the charge under S.412 of the I.P.C. is also maintained. Since out of six appellants, four of them were school and college students and were between the age group of 19 to 27 years, I, however, reduce the sentence of ten years to five years rigorous imprisonment under S.395 of I.P.C. in respect of appellant, Jaddu Gope, Ram Singh Manjhi, Paramjit Singh, Kali Pado Gope and Ignes Ekka. Since out of six appellants, four of them were school and college students and were between the age group of 19 to 27 years, I, however, reduce the sentence of ten years to five years rigorous imprisonment under S.395 of I.P.C. in respect of appellant, Jaddu Gope, Ram Singh Manjhi, Paramjit Singh, Kali Pado Gope and Ignes Ekka. The sentence of appellants, Jadu Gope and Shashi Shekhar Bhokta under S.412 of the I.P.C., is reduced to three years. In case of Jadu Gope, the sentence will, however, run concurrently. 13. In the result, these appeals are dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They must be taken into custody forthwith for serving out the remaining period of sentence.