L. RATH J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is in revision against his conviction under section 395 I. P. C. sentencing him to R. I. for five years, confirmed in appeal. The occurrence in which he was involved was dacoity committed in the house of P. W. 1 on 8/9-4-1981 at about 2. 00 a m. Altogether five persons were made to stand trial, but three of them were acquitted and the rest two, the petitioner and another Sambhu Mohanty, were convicted. ( 2 ) MR. B. B. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in pressing the revision urges firstly that since the trial was of five persons of whom three had been acquitted, a conviction of two others under section 395 I. P. C. is not sustainable which requires in the minimum participation by five persons; and secondly, the petitioner has been found guilty only on the basis of the identification evidence which on the face of it is not credible. ( 3 ) SO far as his first submission is concerned, it has no substance since the prosecution case throughout has been that not only the five who stood trial, but also some more people had participated in the occurrence which fact was also found by the trial court from the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 7, 9 and 10. The evidence of the said P. Ws. also reveals the specific statement that besides the five, some other persons were also there outside the house of P. W. 1 and they prevented the villagers to come inside the house and had also pelted stones at them. Mr. Mohanty placed reliance on State of Orissa v. Susanta Kumar Dey and another1, in support of his contention but the decision in no way supports the submission advanced. It is well settled that even if the charge does not mention the word others yet if it appears from the evidence that more than five persons had participated in the crime, then the charge would not fail merely because some of the accused are acquitted and the resultant number is less than five. A direct authority on the proposition in Suka Misra and others v. The State2. ( 4 ) SO far as identification is concerned, the main bone of contention raised by Mr, Mohanty is that the evidence of P. Ws. A direct authority on the proposition in Suka Misra and others v. The State2. ( 4 ) SO far as identification is concerned, the main bone of contention raised by Mr, Mohanty is that the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 9 regarding identification is not trustworthy since they had seen the accused earlier than the T. I. parade in the police look up. The evidence of P. W. I is challenged since according to him at the time of commission of dacoity, the accused persons had covered their faces and heads with cloth and only available light was that of a lantern for which identification was virtually not possible. The submission though attractive on the face of it does not stand on clear scrutiny. So far as P. W. 1 is concerned, his very statement in the F. I. R. is that he, his wife (P. W. 9) and his brother-in-law (P. W. 7) were in a position to identify the culprits. In court he not only identified the petitioner and the other accused Sambhu Mohanty, but also further stated that he knew these persons previously as they used to frequent the Telanga Bazar. In view of such statement, Abdur Rahman v. State3, relied upon by Mr. Mohanty has no application. It was not a case where the accused persons were previously known to the witnesses, but was one where the witnesses saw the culprits for the first time at the time of the occurrence in a deemly lit room and with their faces and heads covered. So far as the statements of P. Ws 7 and 9 are concerned, though identification by witnesses in a T. I. parade would lose all sanctity if the accused persons are previously pointed out to the witnesses in the look up, yet so far as this case is concerned, both the witnesses stated to have previously seen the accused persons frequently in the vicinity of their house and hence there cannot be any challenge to their identification in court and indeed, the accused persons being previously known, their identification in the T. I. parade would lose all significance. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the statement of the witnesses regarding their previous knowledge of the petitioner and licence the submission of Mr. Mohanty on this court must also fail. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the statement of the witnesses regarding their previous knowledge of the petitioner and licence the submission of Mr. Mohanty on this court must also fail. ( 5 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the revision which is accordingly dismissed.