JUDGMENT S C. Jain, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 28.10.1974 at about 12.45 p.m. Parmanand Gupta and his wife, Smt. Shashi Gupta, were going on their scooter from Vijai Nagar to their village. When they reached the crossing of Cooperganj, Parmanad Gupta stopped the scooter and parked the same by the Side of Urinal and went to purchase grapes etc. Smt. Shashi Gupta remained standing near the scooter. After a little while two persons came there and one of them snatched golden chain from the neck of Smt. Shashi Gupta, whereupon she raised alarm and caught the hand of that person but she was assaulted and was given knife injury. On alarm raised by Smt. Shashi Gupta, her husband, who was purchasing grapes saw this occurrence and rushed to the spot and tried to catch hold of the robbers. In the meantime, Hariom Gupta, Gyan Prakash Gupta and some other persons also collected there, but the robbers succeeded in running away with the robbed property. Parmanand Gupta was also stabbed by the robbers. Those persons who were present and who had come there told on the spot that the persons who had robbed Smt. Shashi Gupta of golden chain and caused injuries to her were Atiq and Shafiq. Atiq was having a defective hand. On the basis of written report a case was registered. 2. Despite the best efforts made by the police these two accused persons could not be arrested on that day. It was only on 7.11.1974 that Shafiq surrendered in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in some other case and he was taken into custody and sent to jail 'Baparda'. The other accused, Atiq, was arrested later on 15.6.1975 and he was also kept in jail 'Baparda'. It was on 6.8.1975 that the test identification parade was arranged at the instance of the prosecution but that identification Parade was postponed because the witnesses did not reach the Jail to take parti in identification parade. That identification parade was arranged for second time, Le., on 1.10.1975. In that identification parade only Sri Parmanand Gupta took part and he correctly identified both the accused persons as the accused who had robbed his wife, Smt. Shashi Gupta on the point of knife and caused injuries to her while robbing her. That identification parade was arranged for second time, Le., on 1.10.1975. In that identification parade only Sri Parmanand Gupta took part and he correctly identified both the accused persons as the accused who had robbed his wife, Smt. Shashi Gupta on the point of knife and caused injuries to her while robbing her. In the statement before the court he also identified the accused persons as those who had committed robbery while armed with deadly weapons and caused Injuries by knife to his wife. His wife, Smt. Shashi Gupta also identified this accused in the Court who had caused injuries to her and robbed her. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses and other circumstances the learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur found both these accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. Feeling aggrieved, both the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur. 4. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants in that admittedly, these accused persons were not known to the witnesses, i.e. Smt. Shashi Gupta and her husband, Parmanand Gupta and, therefore, it was Incumbent on the prosecution to hold identification parade for identification of these accused persons at the earliest. According to him these accused persons were not arrested on the spot and it was on 7.11.1974 that Shafiq, appellant, surrendered in court and was taken into custody whereas other accused, Atiq was arrested on 15.6.1975. According to the learned counsel identification parade was held on 1.10.1975, Le. after a long delay. According to the learned counsel for the appellants delay in holding identification parade is fatal to the case. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of 'Antar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh' reported in 1979 Criminal Law Journal page 715, learned counsel for the appellants argued that holding test identification parade after such a long period is fatal to the prosecution case, and that the statement of Parmanand Gupta cannot be relied upon in such circumstances. Similarly the statement of Smt. Shashi Gupta who identified the accused persons for the first time in Court when her statement was recorded is not to be relied upon because she did not take part in Identification parade earlier. 5. Similarly the statement of Smt. Shashi Gupta who identified the accused persons for the first time in Court when her statement was recorded is not to be relied upon because she did not take part in Identification parade earlier. 5. The second limb of his argument is that when there were more than one person present at the place of occurrence and only one of them took part in identification. He put reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Chunnoo and others v. State reported in AIR 1954 All page 795, wherein it was held that identification parade by one out of four persons is not sufficient for conviction. 6. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that naming these accused persons in the first Information report at the instance of the persons who were present there does not support the prosecution inasmuch as this fact can be proved only by those persons who knew them earlier and named them at the place of occurrence. Those persons have not been examined and the author of the first information report, Umashanker, who has named those persons in the first information report did not know the accused persons prior to that. His evidence is hearsay. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in the absence of proper identification of these accused persons they are entitled to be acquitted as there is no evidence worth the name to connect them with the offence. According to the learned counsel, the robbery had taken place. Injuries were also caused to the lady as well as to her husband at the time of committing robbery but it is not proved at all that it is these two appellants who had committed this crime and as such the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and on facts. 7. As far as the factum of snatching golden chain from the neck of Smt. Shashi Gupta, P.W. 2, and causing injuries to her while committing robbery, it is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that her husband Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1, was also present at that time and also sustained injuries at that very time. 7. As far as the factum of snatching golden chain from the neck of Smt. Shashi Gupta, P.W. 2, and causing injuries to her while committing robbery, it is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that her husband Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1, was also present at that time and also sustained injuries at that very time. Now the question is whether these appellants committed robbery of the golden chain belonging to Smt. Shashi Gupta and caused injuries while committing robbery or they were some one else. 8. Identification parades are held by the police for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the properties which are subject-matter of offence or to identify the persons who are connected with the offence. Regarding holding identification parade at a very late stage it has come on record that second accused, Atiq, was apprehended on 15.6.1975 though accused Shafiq had surrendered on 7.11.1974. According to the prosecution case, identification parade was to be arranged after arrest of the accused persons and, therefore, identification parade was arranged after arrest of the accused persons and as such it was arranged at the earliest on 6.8.1975, as is evident from the statement of Sri Surendra Singh Sengar, Executive Magistrate, who was examined by the accused as D.W. 1. On that day identification parade had to be postponed because there some communication gap to the witnesses who had to take part in identification parade on that date. [Later on, identification parade was held on 1.10.1975. According to Sri. L.M. Kccthari, Executive Magistrate, P.W. 15, It is in that identification parade that Parrmanand Gupta correctly identified these accused persons as those who committed robbery while armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries while committing robbery. It is not the case of the appellants that they were, shown to the witnesses earlier. The record shows that they were kept Baparda in Jail and that this witness had no occasion to see these accused persons anywhere earlier while in custody. Even no question was put to the witness to this effect in his cross-examination. The only point which remains is that whether there is satisfactory explanation for holding identification parade late and is it fatal to the prosecution case? 9. Even no question was put to the witness to this effect in his cross-examination. The only point which remains is that whether there is satisfactory explanation for holding identification parade late and is it fatal to the prosecution case? 9. In this regard Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Antar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) held the identification parade defective not only on the ground of holding identification parade late but on other points also. According to Hon'ble Judges in that case identification parade was held after 12 months after the occurrence and seven months after arrest of the accused but no explanation came forward as to why Identification parade was arranged after such a long period. The facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case. Therefore, that decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the present case in the present circumstances. The test is not whether identification parade was held after a long period but whether the power of observation of witness has been adequate. At the same time whenever a test identification is discovered to have been held with delay, the prosecution should explain it and the absence of a reasonable explanation will detract from the value of the test. 10. In this case not only that there is reasonable explanation of holding test identification parade on 1.10.1975 in which the witness, Parmanand Gupta, correctly identified both the appellants, but it has also come on record that from the time of arrest of these accused persons (till the time of their admission in the jail sufficient precautions were taken to ensure that they were not seen by any outsider. It is not disputed that Shafiq, appellant, surrendered in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7.11.1974 and was sent to jail Baparda. In fact, he surrendered in court in some other, case under Section 334, I.P.C. of Police Station Bajariya District Kanpur and Sri S. N. Shukla, Assistant Jailor, District Jail, Kanpur, who appeared as P.W. 8, stated that the accused was lodged Baparda in Jail and remained as such till the identification parade. In fact, he surrendered in court in some other, case under Section 334, I.P.C. of Police Station Bajariya District Kanpur and Sri S. N. Shukla, Assistant Jailor, District Jail, Kanpur, who appeared as P.W. 8, stated that the accused was lodged Baparda in Jail and remained as such till the identification parade. Sri S. K. Pataria, P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer, stated that on 12.11.1974 when he came to know that accused, Shafiq, surrendered in Court and had been sent Baparda to jail, he submitted report for his detention and for keeping him Baparda. The appellant has nowhere been shown to any one and has not been taken from jail without parade. He was not shown to the witnesses. Similarly, Atiq was arrested on 15.6.1975 and was kept Baparda in jail, as is evident from the statement of the various police officers and entries made in the record. At the time of his arrest he was Baparda and had been kept Baparda till the identification parade was over and he was not seen by any of the witnesses prior to that. Once the evidence has been led to show that accused persons were kept Baparda from the time of their arrest till identification Parade, the burden shifts on the accused to show otherwise. In this case even these appellants have not created any reasonable doubt in the mind of the court on this aspect. 11. Though identification parade has not been challenged, yet prosecution has been able to show that proper identification parade was held for identification of these appellants and full precautions were taken which are required for holding identification parade. It is apparent from the statement of L. M. Kothari, P.W. 15, the Executive Magistrate, who conducted identification parade on 1.10.1975 that Parmanand Gupta correctly identified both these appellants and committed no mistake. He proved the identification-memo prepared by him at the time of test identification parade. This fact has also been admitted by the accused. Smt. Shashi Gupta did not participate in the identification Parade. Not only that, Parmanand Gupta also appeared as P.W. 1 and has proved this fact. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing came out for discrediting him on this account. 12. This fact has also been admitted by the accused. Smt. Shashi Gupta did not participate in the identification Parade. Not only that, Parmanand Gupta also appeared as P.W. 1 and has proved this fact. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing came out for discrediting him on this account. 12. Under these circumstance ,the learned trial court has correctly held that parmanand Gupta, P.W 1, has correctly identified both these appellants in identification parade held in jail and that he also correctly identified them while giving evidence in court. I find no illegality or infirmity in this finding of the trial court and I affirm the same. 13. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were identified at the test identification parade by one witness only and that the other persons did not turn up for identification and therefore it is not legally permissible to base the conviction on the identification by one person only and is also not tenable in the eyes of law. It is settled law as has been laid down by Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master v. State of Bihar, reported in 1964(1) Cr LJ page 564, that even the evidence of a single witness can sustain the conviction of an accused person if the court which saw and heard him depose regards him as a witness of truth. Parmanand Gupta stood the test of touch stone of probabilities in his cross examination and there is nothing which can discredit him for his statement. He has no enmity with these appellants. His power of observation has not been challenged. 14. Jail identification by a witness has a positive value, though the value is reduced by the fact of his non-identification at the trial. In this case Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1. only identified both the appellants in Jail identification but he had also identified them during trial at the time when he appeared as a witness as P.W. 1. Non-participation in the test identification parade by Smt. Shashi Gupta is not fatal to the prosecution case in the present circumstances. In this case Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1. only identified both the appellants in Jail identification but he had also identified them during trial at the time when he appeared as a witness as P.W. 1. Non-participation in the test identification parade by Smt. Shashi Gupta is not fatal to the prosecution case in the present circumstances. From the evidence on record, it has been proved that Smt. Shashi Gupta, P.W. 2, was robbed of her golden chain by these two appellants who were armed with deadly weapons and while committing robbery they inflicted injuries not only to her but also to her husband, Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1. The Trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts and law while holding both these appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial court on the point of conviction. 15. On the point of sentence in the cases of robbery by armed persons inflicting injuries while committing robbery heavy and deterrent punishment should be awarded. In this case not only Smt. Shashi Gupta, P.W. 2, was robbed of her golden chain and injuries were caused to her by deadly and sharp edged weapon, her husband, Parmanand Gupta, P.W. 1, who was with her, was also caused injuries with sharp edged weapon and in these circumstances, a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment cannot be said to be excessive. I also confirm the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the point of sentence. 16. The appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. The appellants, if on bail be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to them. However, they are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 428, Cr. P.C. and the period already undergone by them shall be set off. Appeal dismissed.