JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - Petitioner Jogi Maharan has preferred this revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Puri, in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1984 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed against him u/s 395, I.P.C. by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nayagarh. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on the night of 4.4.1981 at village Kantabania the Petitioner along with others committed dacoity in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and carried away gold ornaments of the inmates of his house, besides cash of Rs. 2, 000/- and that during the course of the commission of the dacoity. P.W. 1 was assaulted by some of the decoits. 3. The plea of the Petitioner was one of danial. 4. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses to prove its case, P.W. 1 is the informant, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the neighbours of P.W. 1 who were examined to prove the occurrence of dacoity in the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is the doctor who examined P.W. 1 regarding his injuries. P.W. 6 is the Grama Rakshi of the village and he also states about the occurrence of dacoity in the village. P.W. 7 is the Magistrate Who conducted the T.I. parade regarding the suspects, P.W. 8 in the Investigating Officer. 5. There is the reliable evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 which establishes that there was an occurrence of dacoity in the house of the informant on the relevant night. Even the Petitioner does not challenge that there was such occurrence of dacoity in the house of the informant. But he pleads that he was in no way concerned with the said occurrence of dacoity, but was falsely implicated in the case. So the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner was also one amongst the dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of the informant on relevant night. 6. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below it is seen that they have relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 to come to a finding that the charge u/s 395, I.P.C. was brought home to the Petitioner. Admittedly the Petitioner was identified by P.W. 1 only in Court as one of the culprits involved in the occurrence of dacoity. Admittedly the Petitioner was identified by P.W. 1 only in Court as one of the culprits involved in the occurrence of dacoity. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strongly contended that as there was no prior T.I. parade regarding the identification of the Petitioner, the evidence regarding the identification of the Petitioner for the first time in Court by P.W. 1 is valueless. In this context he relied on the decision Kanan and Ors. v. State of Kerala AIR 1979 SC 1159. In the said decision of the Supreme Court there was opportunity for the prosecution to conduct the T.I. parade regarding the accused in question. But still no such T.I. parade was conducted. In that view of the matter considering the facts of that case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that if no T.I. parade is held, then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on the, bare testimony of a witness regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. So the facts in the above case are distinguishable from, the facts of the present case. Even otherwise also failure to hold an identification parade does not make inadmissable the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification would be a matter for the Courts of fact. See Kanta Prashad Vs. Delhi Administration. Whether the evidence of a witness in Court on the aspect of identification can be relied an depends upon the intrinsic worth of the testimony of the witness in Court. In this context the decision relied an by the learned Additional Standing Counsel may be referred to In Delhi Administration Vs. Bal Krishan and Others the Supreme Court observed that it is not a proposition of law that after lapse of a long period witnesses would, in no case, be able to identify the dacoits they had been in the course of a dacoity committed during the night. However, as observed by the Supreme Court the Courts must be extremely cautious when such evidence is before them. There may be instances, as in the present case, where on proper scrutiny, the evidence of a witness on the aspect of identification of an accused for the first time in Court can be relied on. However, as observed by the Supreme Court the Courts must be extremely cautious when such evidence is before them. There may be instances, as in the present case, where on proper scrutiny, the evidence of a witness on the aspect of identification of an accused for the first time in Court can be relied on. My above view receives support from the decision of his Court in Sanatan Patra v. State 46 (1978) C.L.T. 309, wherein it wag held that merely because there was no T.I. parade, the evidence of a witness cannot be disbelieved. 7. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 4.4.1981 and the charge-sheet in the case was filed u/s 395, I.P.C. against the Petitioner and others on 16.2.1982 showing the Petitioner as an absconder. So when the Petitioner, by his act of absconding, did not make himself available for the purpose of T.I. parade before 16.2.1982 he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and complain that no T.I. parade was held to identify him, From the records it is seen that it was only after a long lapse of time that the Petitioner- could be arrested and produced before the Court. The reliable evidence of P.W. 1 shows that he had sufficient time and opportunity to observe the Petitioner and others in the electric light, There is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 1 when he stated that the Petitioner had pushed him with a lathi during the course of the occurrence and this is a circumstance which establishes that P.W. 1 had opportunity to observe the Petitioner from close quarters. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, it is seen that the fact that there was no prior identification of the Petitioner in a T.I. parade was in the minds of the Assistant Sessions Judge and the, Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence on the aspect of identification of the Petitioner as one of the culprits involved in the occurrence of dacoity. It was only after a careful consideration of all aspects of the matter that both the Courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding, that the Petitioner was also one of the culprits involved in the occurrence of dacoity. It was only after a careful consideration of all aspects of the matter that both the Courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding, that the Petitioner was also one of the culprits involved in the occurrence of dacoity. On a perusal of the judgment of the Courts below I find that the trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, were justified in holding that the Petitioner was, guilty u/s 396, I.P.C. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the Petitioner, I see no reason to interfere with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed on him. 8. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed