JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - These three criminal appeals from jail arises out or a common judgment/order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in S.T.Case No.22 of 1993 for offences under Sections 396 and 457, I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and order of sentence passed thereunder. These appeals having involved common question of law and facts, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, are taken up together and disposed of with this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 22.11.1992 at about 12.15 A.M., there was a dacoity with murder in village Chintapalli under Parlakhemundi Police Station. The informant, Tuta Krishna Rao was sleeping on a cot on his veranda and his other family members were sleeping inside the house. At about 12.15 A.M., ten persons wearing black dresses exploded bombs and threatened the informant, P.W.1 not to raise hullah or leave the bed. Thereafter the accused persons went to the house of informant's uncle T. Venkata Rao and gave pushes to the doors. While the accused persons were entering the house of his uncle after breaking the hook of the front door, T. Venkata Rao opened the door and the dacoits entered inside his house. It is stated that after looting the house of uncle T. Venkata Rao, they came to the house of the informant and gave pushes to the doors and shouted for opening the doors. The father of the informant out of fear, opened the door and the dacoits looted the ornaments and cash. They assaulted the father and elder brother of the informant. Thereafter also the dacoits entered into some other houses of the neighbours and when one N. Tarakeswar came out of the house he died due to bomb exploded by the accused persons. All the dacoits were armed with deadly weapons and had torches etc. On the next day of the occurrence on 23.11.92 at about 8 A.M., the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1, which was reduced into writing. All the dacoits were armed with deadly weapons and had torches etc. On the next day of the occurrence on 23.11.92 at about 8 A.M., the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1, which was reduced into writing. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation of the case, visited the spot, seized some articles, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, examined the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and after taking all steps and observing formalities submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons, who were identified in the T.I. Parade by the eye-witnesses to face their trial under Sections 457 and 396, I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. The defence plea was one of denial of their complicity in the crime. 3. The Prosecution examined 31 witnesses to prove its case of whom P.Ws.1 to 5, 9 and 25 have spoken about the commission of dacoity. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the doctors, who had examined the injured witnesses. P.W. 14 is another doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Tarakeswar, P.Ws. 6, 12, 16 to 21 and 23 are the witnesses to seizure, P.Ws. 6, 10, 23 and 27 are the post-occurrence witnesses and P.W.25 is the Investigating Officer. 4. The Addl. Sessions Judge, has found on consideration of the evidence on record that on the night of 22.11.1992, there was a dacoity in village Chintapalli with murder of one Tarakeswar. On the question of involvement or complicity of the accused persons in the crime, the Addl. Sessions Judge, mainly relied on the identification of the accused persons and the recovery of some looted properties. P.W. 1 is the informant who had identified the accused persons in the T.I. Parade, to have been the persons, who accompanied the other members of the gang but his evidence had been disbelieved in part by the trial Court to the extent of identifying the accused persons he having admitted in his cross-examination that he had seen the accused persons in the police station after the occurrence when they were arrested and before the T.I. Parade was conducted. The remaining eye-witnesses are P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 9. 5. Sri Sushil Kumar Patnaik, the learned counsel for appellant, R. Chinna in jail Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 1994 and Sri Sangram Kumar Sahoo appearing for appellant G. Appa Rao in Jail Crl. The remaining eye-witnesses are P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 9. 5. Sri Sushil Kumar Patnaik, the learned counsel for appellant, R. Chinna in jail Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 1994 and Sri Sangram Kumar Sahoo appearing for appellant G. Appa Rao in Jail Crl. Appeal No. 162 of 1994 and K.Venkata Rao, appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1994 raised the common contention that the possibility of these witnesses identifying the accused persons during the course of the alleged occurrence and in the T.I. Parade are unbelievable in view of the prosecution case that it was a dark night and that all the accused persons including the 'appellant were wearing black dresses as well and were covering their faces with black clothes also. It is further submitted that in absence of any description of identifying mark or special features in the physical appearance given in the first information report nor in course of their evidence these so-called eye-witnesses, having allegedly seen the accused persons from a distance through the torches held by the accused persons, it was humanly not possible to remember their faces to identify these persons after more than two months after the occurrence, during the T.I. Parade or after a lapse of more than a year in the Court and as such the trial Court ought not to have given credence to their evidence to record a finding of guilt. 6. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, now let us consider the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence namely P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 9. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that in the night of 22.11.92 at about 11. P.M., when he was sleeping in the varendah, he heard the barking of his dog and saw some persons coming and when he tried to wake up, he was threatened to be killed, if he moves. The accused persons were ten in number and four in the dock were persons from amongst them. He further stated that two of them namely Venkata Rao and Appa Rao guarded him at the varendah and the rest entered into his uncle's house and after about 15 minutes, ten persons came to his house and out of them six persons entered inside his house and rest remained outside, besides the two who were already there with him. He further stated that two of them namely Venkata Rao and Appa Rao guarded him at the varendah and the rest entered into his uncle's house and after about 15 minutes, ten persons came to his house and out of them six persons entered inside his house and rest remained outside, besides the two who were already there with him. He has identified K. Anna Rao and R. Chinna in the dock. He heard accused persons asking his father to hand over the key of the almirah and after sometimes, the accused persons came out of his house and he was informed by his nephew that the accused persons had taken away Rs. 300/- in cash, one gold necklace and ear-ring. He further stated that he heard that there was also docoity in the house of K. Chalapati and K. Anna Rao. This witness identified four accused persons in the T.I. Parade. However, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the identification in the T.I. Parade on the ground that he had seen the four accused persons in the Police Station after their arrest and before the T.I. Parade. But however, the learned trial Court has relied on the evidence of this witness to the extent of commission of a dacoity in the village. 7. P.W. 2, T. Venkata Rao is an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is his statement that after hearing the explosion of bombs at about 12 mid-night of 22.11.92, he woke up from the bed and came to inner verandah and saw that the accused persons including the appellant G. Appa Rao and Anna Rao entering into his house after breaking open the grill and the front door. They came and assaulted this witness whom he wanted to ward off the blow, his right forearm was fractured due to assault and he sustained injuries on his body, whereafter, he fell down and unmoved. He further states that 5 to 6 persons came but, he could not identify accused Venkata Rao (appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1994), who was outside the house, he also identified accused Appa Rao, Anna Rao and Venkat Rao. According to this witness, he remained in semi-conscious state due to the assault. He further states that 5 to 6 persons came but, he could not identify accused Venkata Rao (appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1994), who was outside the house, he also identified accused Appa Rao, Anna Rao and Venkat Rao. According to this witness, he remained in semi-conscious state due to the assault. P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1 and stated that after hearing the explosion of the bombs and barking of the dog, he woke up and opened half of the door and saw six culprits including four in the dock. Accused Venkata asked him to give the key of the almirah and he saw all the four accused persons including the three appellants in these three appeals. He was assaulted by accused Venkata inside his house. In cross-examination, he stated that his son was sleeping on a cot by the time the culprits entered inside his house and the accused Venkata assaulted him. In the T.I. Parade, this witness has identified accused Appa Rao and Venkata Rao, T. Ananda Rao, P.W.4 has stated that he opened the door hearing the explosion of the bomb and saw 10/12 persons in front of the house of P.W.3, T. Ananda Rao and T. Venkat Rao, P.W.2. All the accused persons were putting on black dresses and accused Venkata Rao told him to close the door, failing which he would throw bomb towards his house, as such, he suddenly closed the door and through the opening of the door, he saw that the culprits are entering into the house of Venkata Rao after giving pushes to the doors. He has further stated that two persons were moving on the road and by that time two appellants were exploding bombs near his house. Another bomb was exploded and all the accused persons went to the house of Babeyya. After 15 minutes, the culprits came to his house and pushed the doors with heavy force due to which the door got opened and ultimately they entered his house. They opened the almirah by means of iron rod and took away one Putilu Tadu from one almirah and after damaging iron box they took away one Khadu of his grandson, one gold chain and cash of Rs. 300/-. This witness identified three accused persons present in dock, except G. Anna Rao. They opened the almirah by means of iron rod and took away one Putilu Tadu from one almirah and after damaging iron box they took away one Khadu of his grandson, one gold chain and cash of Rs. 300/-. This witness identified three accused persons present in dock, except G. Anna Rao. P.W. 5, P. Babeyya is another witness, whose house was looted by these accused persons. According to this witness, he sustained injuries in course of the incident and after sustaining injuries, he left the house through the back-door. P.W. 9 T. Adinarayan, is another eye-witness to the occurrence, who also identified the accused reasons. According to this witness, he saw about 10 accused persons retreating, out of whom he could identify three, namely Venkata Rao, Appa Rao and R. Chinna in Court. He also saw the dead body of Tarakeswar, who died due to explosion of bomb. According to this witness, the occurrence took place in the dark night. But however, P.W. 9 was not called as a witness to the T.I. Parade. 8. It is clearly established from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that 4 to 5 accused persons were holding torch and they identified the accused in the light emitted from the torch. The torch was also used during the course of dacoity in different houses. A contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence having taken place in dark night and it being the evidence of some of the witnesses that the culprits were using black dresses, he identification could not have been possible and as such, the learned trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses. It may be recalled that P.W.3 categorically stated that accused Venkata had not covered his face with black clothes and according to him, accused Venkata Rao bad taken the main role in the dacoity committed in the house of P.W.3. It is true that P.W.1 has stated that some of the culprits had covered their faces with black clothes, and P.W. 9 has stated that the culprits had black ribbons around their forehead but from such evidence, it cannot be said that all the accused persons had covered their faces with black clothes. It is true that P.W.1 has stated that some of the culprits had covered their faces with black clothes, and P.W. 9 has stated that the culprits had black ribbons around their forehead but from such evidence, it cannot be said that all the accused persons had covered their faces with black clothes. The statements of the witnesses that the accused persons used black dresses ipso facto will not mean that they had also covered their faces with black clothes so as to keep out of sight of the witnesses. It is also to be noted that the accused persons used torch lights while looting the properties and the looting took considerable time. In such circumstances, the scope for the witnesses to identify and remember their features is not unusual and as such can be relied upon. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants have strenuously argued that the so-called recovery of the articles and its identification are neither in accordance with law nor that could have been relied upon by the learned trial Court to record a finding of guilt against the accused-appellants. It may be noted that the recovery of M.O.I. only has been believed and recovery of other articles has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Accused Venkata Rao was arrested on 27.12.92 and while in police custody, gave information and led the police official P.W.25 (the Investigating Officer) to the shop of P.W.29 at village Tikali where P.W.29 produced M.O.I. M.O.I. was seized by P.W.25 in presence of the seizure witness P.W.20 under Ext. 20. P.Ws. 25 to 20 have consistently stated that P.W.29 had produced the gold ear-ring, M.O.I. and there is nothing to discard the evidence of these witnesses. M.O.I. has been identified by I.T. Venkata Rao, P.W.2 and P.Hemalata, P.W. 24 and therefore we find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the legal formalities and the precautionary measures having not been observed in the test-identification Parade inasmuch as the T.I. Parade having not been conducted at the earliest opportunity, no reliance could have been placed on the same. The T.I. Parade was conducted by the Magistrate, P.W. 30. Accused K.Venkata Rao was arrested on 29.12.92, R. Chinna was arrested on 8.1.93 and the T.I.Parade was conducted on 18.1.93. The T.I. Parade was conducted by the Magistrate, P.W. 30. Accused K.Venkata Rao was arrested on 29.12.92, R. Chinna was arrested on 8.1.93 and the T.I.Parade was conducted on 18.1.93. In the circumstances, the T.I.Parade of the accused persons held on 18.1.93 cannot be said to have been conducted with inordinate delay. Accused K. Venkata Rao I has been identified by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. Accused G. Appa Rao has been identified by P.W. 4 both in T.I. Parade as well as in Court. Accused R. Chinna was identified by P.W. 4 both in T.I. Parade as well as in Court. P.W. 30, the Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. Parade has stated in his evidence that the identifying witnesses on narrating the specific overt acts by the suspects have identified them in the T.I.Parade. Although the specific description of the culprits was not narrated by the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of identification cannot be brushed aside. The eye-witnesses had the occasion to see the accused persons from a very close distance, while coming to the place and committing the dacoity in taking out the valuables from the almirahs, boxes and other places in the house, using torch. Thus, in normal circumstances, their identity, the facial and structural appearance could have easily been marked and remembered by the eye-witnesses, why are the inmates of the house, which were looted. The prosecution witnesses have identified the accused persons at the T.I. Parade as well as they have also identified them in the Court. On a perusal of the evidence on record and the discussions made in the impugned judgment, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment. 11. There is evidence of P.W.2, who clearly states that he heard the sound of explosion of bombs in the night and in the next morning of the occurrence, he found the dead body of M. Tarakeswar Rao in front of Babeyyas's house. P.W. 14, the Medical Officer of Parlakhemundi, who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased M. Tarekeswar Rao on 23.11.1992, had found a big lacerated wound on the right side abdomen of the deceased, lacerated injury above the right elbow and multiple small abrasion looking black on the right side of the chest wall, right upper arm and right upper thigh. According to the Doctor, there was a puncture of liver on posterior surface on right lobe. The cause of death according to the Medical Officer was due to shock and haemorrhage and due to rupture of the liver and the injuries might have been caused by explosion of bombs. From the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it appears that there is no substantial cross-examination to this effect to discredit the prosecution version. 12. In view of the evidence on record as discussed above, the complicity of the accused-appellants in the commission of the offence under Section 457/396, I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act as found by the learned Court below, cannot be doubted. 13. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the criminal appeal and the same is therefore dismissed. P.K. Naik, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed