D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 27-2-89 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sthagarh in a case under Section 457/395/34, I. P. C. and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. The appellants were found guilty for the offences of lurking house trespass and dacoity and convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years each. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief. On 15/16-4- 88 at about 1 a. m. in the night, the appellants along with 7 to 8 persons forcibly entered the house of Ananta Charan Acharya (P. W. 1) of village Kamarpur Sasan and after assaulting him, his wife and daughter, took away gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs. 1050/- and decamped with the booty. It was also alleged that they exploded bombs to scare the neighbours as a result of which the neighbours could not come to the spot. P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R. at the Gurudijhatia Police Station at 7. 30 a. m. the following morning. The Investigating Officer during investigation visited the spot, seized a tin box from the spot and also seized stainless steel and ceramic plates from the house of the informant for the purpose of identification of suspected finger prints. A test-identification parade was also held by the Magistrate during investigation in which the appellants were identified. The Investigating Officer seized cash of Rs. 1050/ - on recovery given by Appellant Bhagaban and melted gold piece on recovery given by appellant Sukanta. P,ws. 1, 5 and 7, the injured persons were medically examined. The Medical Officer found injuries on their persons. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet. ( 3 ) THE defence plea was one of total denial. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined altogether 14 witnesses of whom, the material witnesses were P. W. 1 the informant, P. Ws. 5 and 7 the daughter and wife of P. W. 1 respectively, P. W. 6 the Doctor who examined the injured persons, P. W. 13 the Magistrate who conducted the test-identification parade, P. W. 14 the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and the rest were the witnesses to seizure etc. ( 5 ) THAT there was a decoity in the house of P. W. 1 on 15/ 16-4-88 at about 1 a.m. has been amply proved. P. Ws. ( 5 ) THAT there was a decoity in the house of P. W. 1 on 15/ 16-4-88 at about 1 a.m. has been amply proved. P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 are the inmates of the house. P. W. 1 is the father of P. W. 5 and husband of P. W. 7. They have narrated the story as to how 7 to 8 persons forcibly made their entry into the house and assaulted all the P. Ws. causing injuries on their persons and took cash of Rs, 1050/- and gold and silver ornaments and while going away exploded bombs to scare the villagers which prevented them to come to their house. P. Ws. 8, 9 and 11 are the neighbours who stated corroborating each other that immediately after the dacoity they went to the house of P. W. 1 and found the articles scattered here and there and an open trunk lying in the house. P. W. 16 the doctor medically examined P. Ws. 5 and 7 on 16-4-88 at 8 a. m. and found incised injuries in their hands. The F. I. R. Was lodged by P. W. 1 at 7. 30 a. m. following the incident at 1 a. m. The A. S. I. (P. W. 12) visited the spot and by about 9. 15 a. m. he seized the remanents of exploded bombs lying close to the Bari of P. W. 1. Therefore, the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge about the dacoity is upheld. The only question for consideration is as to whether the appellants committed the same. This necessarily brings out as to whether there was any possibility on the part of the P. Ws. to identify the appellants as stated by them. ( 6 ) TO establish the identity of the appellants, learned Assistant Sessions Judge has relied on the circumstances such as the test-identification parade in respect of suspects and leading to discovery of incriminating articles and cash etc. given by the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants were not known to the family members of P. W. 1. ( 6 ) TO establish the identity of the appellants, learned Assistant Sessions Judge has relied on the circumstances such as the test-identification parade in respect of suspects and leading to discovery of incriminating articles and cash etc. given by the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants were not known to the family members of P. W. 1. Had it been so, P. W. 1 who lodged the F. I. R. must have mentioned their names in the F. I. R. P. W. 1 mentioned in the F. I. R. that the culprit who assaulted him with lathi was of fair complexion, strong, stout but tall and would be aged about 30 to 32 years. The culprit who assaulted P. Ws. 5 and 7 was a tall and thin with protruding teeth. Therefore, it is evident that these two culprits did not cover their face with mask though it was stated in the F. I. R. that some of the culprits had masks on their face. In the evidence before the Court, P. W. 1 stated that it was appellant Bhagaban Das who dealt a lathi blow on him and also pushed him. On account of assault by lathi by appellant Bhagaban, P. W. 1 sustained injury on his left hand and was medically examined. The doctor found the injuries like abraisons and bruises on the person of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 identified appellant Bhagaban Das in Court. But, however, earlier also he had identified appellant Bhagaban Das along with appellant Pradip Mukherjee in the test-identification parade held on 25-4-88. To add to this, P. Ws. 5 and 7 also identified both appellants Bhagaban Das and Pradip Mukherjee in the test-identification parade. P. W. 13 in the appropriate column of Ext. 14 has mentioned that all the three identifying witnesses i. e. P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 correctly identified the two appellants Bhagaban and Pradip and further giving out the parts played by them during dacoity. All of them stated that appellant Bhagaban gave lathi blows on the hand and back of P. W. 1 while appellant Pradip was searching for articles in the house. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 13 that there has been any infirmity in conducting the test-identification parade. The evidence of P. Ws. All of them stated that appellant Bhagaban gave lathi blows on the hand and back of P. W. 1 while appellant Pradip was searching for articles in the house. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 13 that there has been any infirmity in conducting the test-identification parade. The evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 7 that at the time of committing dacoity P. W. 7 was assaulted by one of the culprits has been dully corroborated by evidence of P. W. 1 coupled with the evidence of the Magistrate (P. W. 13) and the test-identification parade report (Ext. 14 ). Thus it is amply proved that appellant Bhagaban Das assaulted P. W. 1 while committing dacoity, appellant Pradip Mukherjee was searching for the articles and he along with another took away cash and the silver Anta Suta from the box. ( 7 ) IT would be worthwhile to mention that so far as the test-identification parade in respect of appellants Pradip Mukherjee and Bhagaban Das is concerned, the same was held on 25-4-88. Both of them were arrested by the Investigating Officer on 18-4-88 and produced before the S. D. J. M. on 20-4-88. The S. D. J. M. fixed up the date for the T. I. Parade to 23-4-88, but since he had no time, he conducted the T. I. Parade on 25-4-88. Thus, there was no delay in conducting the T. I. Parade in respect of the above two appellants. I have already held in the preceding lines that there is nothing wrong in conducting the T. I. Parade by P. W. 13, the Magistrate. I have also gone through his evidence in which he has stated that the identifying witnesses (P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7) correctly identified the two appellants which he noted in the T. I. Parade report (Ext. 14 ). Thus, the Magistrate has confirmed his report (Ext. 14) in his evidence in which no infirmity is detected. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold, agreeing with the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, that P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 had seen these two appellants committing dacoity in their house as alleged above which fact has been duly corroborated by them in the T. I. Parade where the two appellants were duly identified as having committed the offence. 1, 5 and 7 had seen these two appellants committing dacoity in their house as alleged above which fact has been duly corroborated by them in the T. I. Parade where the two appellants were duly identified as having committed the offence. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions on this point cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. No doubt, learned counsel Mr. Sahu for the appellants referred to a decision of this Court reported in (1986) 61 CLT (Short Notes No. 98) page 46, Kisanlal Singh v. State of Orissa, and Mr. Das learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on a decision on the same point as that of Mr. Sahu reported in (1986) 62 CLT 516, Jogeya alias Jogesh Kumar Sha v. State of Orissa and (1991) 71 CLT 299, Subash Chandra Padhi v. State, it will be idle to discuss these three decisions for the simple reason that in both these cases cited by learned counsel the accused persons were identified by the witnesses for the first time in Court and further in the latter decision identification of the suspects having been made long after the occurrence was disbelieved by the Court. But in the case at hand, the T. I. Parade was held five days after the appellants were produced in the Court. Hence these decisions are distinguishable on facts. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants referred to two decisions reported in AIR 1979 SC 1127 : (1979 Cri LJ 919), Karan v. State of Kerala and AIR 1980 SC 1382 : (1980 Cri LJ 965), State (Delhi Admn.) v. V. C. Shukla. In both these cases also the something had happened. There was no prior T. I. Parade when the witnesses were examined in the Court. These two decisions are also of no assistance to support the submission of the learned counsel on the point. I may profitably refer to the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 791 : (1974 Cri LJ 674), Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, wherein their Lordships held that the evidence of test identification at best can be taken into as a supporting evidence and that it can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in Court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test-identification parade by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity of the culprit can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also. In the present case, I have already held the substantive evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 have duly been proved that a dacoity had taken place in their house and that they had witnessed all the 7 to 8 persons committing the dacoity of whom they mentioned about appellants Bhagaban and Pradip also having taken part in the dacoity whom they later identified in the T. I. Parade which has been found to have been properly conducted, thereby establishing the identity of the two appellants in committing the offence. Besides, I may also refer to another decision of this Court reported in 1990 (2) OLR 324 Satrughana Parida v. State of Orissa, wherein this Court has held that when the statements of the identifying witnesses are otherwise believable and the T. I. Parade is held in a fair manner and not after a long lapse of time, the evidence of the identifying witnesses cannot be thrown out merely because the witnesses do not give the specific identifying features. In the case, the informant, in the F. I. R. had not given any identifying features of the culprits at the time of committing dacoity. But in the present case, P. W. 1 had described the identifying features with regard to two appellants. It was for the defence to bring out in cross-examination that in fact these identifying features so given by P. W. 1 did not tally with the identifying features of appellants Pradip Mukherjee and Bhagaban Das at the time of T. I. Parade. It was for the defence to bring out in cross-examination that in fact these identifying features so given by P. W. 1 did not tally with the identifying features of appellants Pradip Mukherjee and Bhagaban Das at the time of T. I. Parade. That, so far as the identification parade with regard to appellant Sukanta Swain is concerned, no reliance can be placed for the purpose of identification of this appellant because of inordinate delay in conducting the T. I. Parade (appellant Sukanta was arrested on 4-6-88 whereas T. I. Parade was conducted on 11 -7-88) as has been held in the case of Jogesh Kumar Sha case (supra) and the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1938 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy. ( 8 ) THE other circumstance on which the prosecution relied was leading to discovery of the stolen articles given by appellants Bhagaban, Pradip and Sukanta. With regard to appellant Bhagaban, the Investigating Officer (P. W. 14) stated that appellant Bhagaban was arrested on 18-4-88. While in custody appellant Bhagaban led the witnesses and P. W. 14 to the house of Madhaba Swain, father of appellant Sukanta and gave recovery of Rs 1050/- which was seized by the I. O. in presence of the witnesses. Ext. 9 is the seizure-list which describes the circumstances under which this exact amount which was taken away during the time of dacoity was recovered at his instance. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge while dealing with this aspect of the case has accepted the evidence leading to discovery as one of the circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence and the justifying reason is that the exact amount of Rs. 1050/- which was the subject-matter of the dacoity was given recovery at the instance of this appellant. This evidence of the Investigating Officer has been duly corroborated by P. W. 11 who stated in his evidence that on 18-4-87 he had been to Choudwar to his brother one Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra. There the Investigating Officer called him to proceed to Budhalinga village i. e. the village of appellant Bhagaban Das and he accompanied the police to the said village. He identified appellant Bhagaban Das in the Court. There the Investigating Officer called him to proceed to Budhalinga village i. e. the village of appellant Bhagaban Das and he accompanied the police to the said village. He identified appellant Bhagaban Das in the Court. He further stated that the appellant produced cash which he brought out from the thatched roof of a house and that the denominations were one hundred 10 rupee notes and one 50 rupee note. This leading to discovery lends support to the prosecution case that appellant Bhagapan Das took part in the dacoity. ( 9 ) THE involvement of appellant Bhagaban has been further proved from Ext. 17 which is the opinion of the Finger Print Expert. During the investigation the A. S. I. of Gurudijhatia P. S. who immediately after registration of the case took up the investigation on 16-4-88 had seized under seizure list Ext. 19, one stainless-steel plate and one ceramic plate suspecting that the culprits while committing the dacoity might have left finger impressions on those plates. They were sent to the Finger Print Bureau for examination by experts and the report (Ext. 17) shows that the, finger print marked 'a' detected on the other surface of the stainless-steel plate tallied with the specimen finger print marked 'x' Said to be the 'right thumb impression of appellant Bhagban Das'. This part of the evidence of the prosecution has not been shaken in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the leading to discovery so far as appellant Pradip Mukherjee is concerned, Investigating Officer has not stated about any such recovery at his instance. So far as appellant Sukanta is concerned, no doubt the Investigating Officer (P. W. 14) in his evidence stated that this appellant while in jail custody led him to Cuttack Bania Sahi to the shop of one Sanjib Maharana (P. W. 3) the goldsmith saying to have sold the ornaments in question to the said P. W. 3. P. W. 3 produced the melted gold which was seized under seizure-list (Ext. 4 ). Ext. 4 gives out the circumstance as to how appellant Sukanta while in police custody led the Investigating Officer to the shop of P. W. 3 admitting to have sold the ornaments for Rs. 400/- to the said P. W. 3. In this regard, P. W. 3 stated that he is a goldsmith dealing with repairing of gold ornaments. Ext. 4 gives out the circumstance as to how appellant Sukanta while in police custody led the Investigating Officer to the shop of P. W. 3 admitting to have sold the ornaments for Rs. 400/- to the said P. W. 3. In this regard, P. W. 3 stated that he is a goldsmith dealing with repairing of gold ornaments. He was unable to identify appellant Sukanta in Court and further denied to have remembered whether it was appellant Sukanta who had sold any gold or silver ornament to him at any time but all the same admitted that one person along with the Choudwar police had gone to his house and said to have sold a pair of gold ear rings to him for Rs. 400/- and that he further stated to have purchased the said gold ear rings from that person and further to have melted the same after the purchase which the police seized. In the absence of the P. W. 3's identifying the appellant, no importance can be attached to his leading to discovery. Consequently the melted gold also was not in an identifying state. So I do not consider this as a circumstance against appellant Sukanta. Even assuming that he gave recovery of the articles while in custody, this circumstance alone would not be sufficient to maintain a conviction since there is no other substantive evidence that this appellant was duly identified to have taken part in the dacoity as has been held in the case of two other appellants. There is also no material against appellant Sesadeva. No test-identification parade was held for identification of appellant Sesadeva. No incriminating material has also recovered from him. Hence both these appellants are found not guilty of the charges. ( 11 ) IN the result, the prosecution having successfully proved the case against appellants Bhagaban Das and Pradip Mukherjee, the conviction and sentence of these two appellants by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge are upheld and their respective appeals are dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal by appellant Sukanta and the jail criminal appeal by appellant Sesadeva are allowed and their conviction and sentence are set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted and be set at liberty forthwith. The seized property such as, gold, silver, cash and the utensils etc. be returned to the informant (P. W. 1 ). Order accordingly.