V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THE accused appellants Nyasingh and Subhan have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 718/87 and appellants Dayasingh and Jogada have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 6571 87, against their convictions and sentences. As they arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard and decided by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants were charged under SC. 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has convicted them under both the charges and sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment each in each of the offences. Both the sentences to run concurrently. It is against this conviction and sentences that this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that during the night between 3rd and 4th August, 1986, the accused persons entered the house of the complainant Sardar in village Ziran with bows arrows, and sticks etc. and injuring the inmates of the house of Sardar, Kulu, Sukli, Sawali, Reta, Mesari and Ranti took away silver ornaments and house-hold goods worth Rs. 2200/ -. On report being lodged and on investigation, recovery of the goods taken away by the accused persons was made from them. After the trial, the accused persons were held guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 4 ) SHRI A. N. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence consisted only of recovery of ornaments and identification of the accused persons by the witnesses. According to him both these are defective and the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-persons. The learned counsel for the State supported the convictions and sentences. ( 5 ) THE prosecution in support of its case has examined P. W. 1 Bhaiyalalsingh, P. W. 2 Dr. Mulchand Hargunani, P. W. 3 Khilawansingh, P. W. 4 Sardar, s/c Kalu, P. W. 5 Dinesh, P. W. 6 Sahabuddin, P. W. 7 Vasant Naik and P. W. 8 James Kindo. P. W. 1 Bhaiyalalsingh is a Head Constable and a witness of the memorandum of information leading to recovery of weapons. The recovery is not disputed by the accused-persons. The only question asked to the witness was that the weapons recovered are normally kept by the tribal people in their houses. P. W. 2 Dr. P. W. 1 Bhaiyalalsingh is a Head Constable and a witness of the memorandum of information leading to recovery of weapons. The recovery is not disputed by the accused-persons. The only question asked to the witness was that the weapons recovered are normally kept by the tribal people in their houses. P. W. 2 Dr. Mulchand Hargunanihas deposed as to the injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses, who were present at the time of the incident in the house. His statement has not been challenged in the cross-examination. P. W. 3 Khilawansipgh is a witness who has taken down the First Information Report. ( 6 ) P. W. 4 Sardar s/c Kalu is the owner of the house in which the offence was committed. He has narrated the incident and had identified the articles recovered from the accused-persons. Shri. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants, laid emphasis on a sentence in the cross-examination of this witness to the effect that in the Tehsil the Head Constable had shown the articles to him and had told them to identify the same before the Tehsildar. It is true that this sentence creates confusion and doubt that the identification was fake. The entire statement has to be read as a whole and when earlier the witness had stated in the cross-examination that he had seen the articles for the first time after the theft in the Tehsil Office and he had denied the suggestion that the Station House Officer had shown the articles to him and asked him to identify the same in the Tehsil and immediately after the aforesaid sentence he had also dismissed suggestion that the Head Constable had shown to him the articles and volunteered to say that the Head Constable had already deposited the articles in the Tehsil and had shown to him in the Tehsil alone, it cannot be said that the witness had accepted the suggestion that the articles were shown to him before identification in the Tehsil. ( 7 ) P. W. 5 Dinesh is a Panchanama witness, who has turned hostile. P. W. 6 Sahabuddin is another panchanama witness, who has made a categorical statement supporting the memoranda under section 27 of the Evidence Act. P. W. 7 Vasant Naik was the Investigating Officer. He had given allthe details of the investigation including recovery of the articles on the information u/s. 27 of theevidence Act. P. W. 6 Sahabuddin is another panchanama witness, who has made a categorical statement supporting the memoranda under section 27 of the Evidence Act. P. W. 7 Vasant Naik was the Investigating Officer. He had given allthe details of the investigation including recovery of the articles on the information u/s. 27 of theevidence Act. P. W. 8 James Kindo, the Naib Tehsildar, proved the identification of articles. ( 8 ) ON the evidence on record the guilt of the accused-persons has been clearly proved and there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Their bail-bonds stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed. .