JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner assails his conviction made for an offence punishable u/s 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'Indian Penal Code') read with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and u/s 25(IB) (a) Arms act, 1959 (in short, 'Arms Act') and u/s 3 of Explosive Substances Act (in short, 'Explosive Act'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence u/s 395, Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/s 397 read with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months u/s 25 (IB) (a) of the Arms Act. It may be noted that he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Explosive Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned C.J.M. -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, learned trial. Magistrate. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. 2. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused are essentially as follows: Informant Maniram Jindal (P.W.l) reported before the Inspector-in-charge, Rajgangpur P.S. that on 19.12.1992 at about 7 p.m. when he and other inmates of the house were witnessing T.V. at that time his sister-in-law Swadeshirani Jindal (P.W.3) raised hulla from outside that somebody had snatched away a chain from her neck. She came running to the room where others were witnessing T.V.. Thereafter 2 to 3 persons being armed with pistol, crackers entered inside the room and started attacking the inmates of the house by exploding crackers and by firing from the pistols, as a result of which inmates of the house sustained grievous injuries on their persons. When some of the inmates of the house resisted, 3 to 4 other persons also entered inside the house and started firing from pistols, and exploded crackers. During resistance by the inmates, one of the dacoits sustained injury and subsequently died. When some of the inmates of the house resisted, 3 to 4 other persons also entered inside the house and started firing from pistols, and exploded crackers. During resistance by the inmates, one of the dacoits sustained injury and subsequently died. On seeing death of a member of their gang, other dacoits removed some valuable articles like gold, silver and cash and fled away from the house. They could also see the approach of the villagers. Details of articles removed were indicated in the report. The inmates who had sustained injuries were treated at different hospitals. Investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was placed against two accused persons who were in custody and three others who were shown as absconders,and another accused Thakur Bachha alias Kartika Parmanik who died by the time of submission of charge-sheet. Two accused persons who were committed to the Court of Session were separately tried, as case against them was split up. Accused persons pleaded innocence. 3. In this case to substantiate the charge u/s 395, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution shall have to prove: (i) That robbery was committed or attempted. (ii) That five or more persons committed or attempted to commit robbery; or that the whole number of persons committing or attempting to commit robbery was five or more. (iii) That such persons were acting conjointly. In order to substantiate the offence u/s 397, Indian Penal Code the prosecution shall have to prove: (i) That commission of robbery or dacoity. (ii) That the accused used a deadly weapon; or caused grievous hurt, or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt. (iii) That the above acts were done during the commission of robbery or dacoity. In order to substantiate the offence u/s 25 (IE) (a) of Arms Act the prosecution shall have to prove: (i) That the accused persons at the time of commission of dacoity were armed with guns and pistols without any valid licence and they used those weapons fro committing dacoity. In order to substantiate the offence u/s 3 of Explosive Act the prosecution shall have to prove. (ii)That the accused persons exploded crackers at the time of commission of dacoity thereby created apprehension in the mind of inmates of the house and due to said explosion the commission of dacoity was facilitated by them. 4. In order to substantiate its allegations, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. (ii)That the accused persons exploded crackers at the time of commission of dacoity thereby created apprehension in the mind of inmates of the house and due to said explosion the commission of dacoity was facilitated by them. 4. In order to substantiate its allegations, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. As indicated above, Maniram Jindal (P.W.1) is the informant, Sobharant Jindal (P.W.2) is his wife, Swadesirani Jindal (P.W.3) is sister-in-law and Pramod Kumar Agarwal (P.WA) is the son of P.W.3 and nephew of P. Ws.1 and 2. Susil Kumar Agarwal (P.W.H) is another brother of P.WA and Mangaram Agarwal (P.W.12) is brother of P.W.1, Rabikanta Agarwal (P.W.13) is other brother of P.WA and P.W.ll, and Ramesh Sahu (P.W.10) is a neighbour of P.W.1. Similarly Paikal Krushna Murty (P.W.14) and Mahadevlal Sahu (P.W.15) are neighbours. Referring to evidence of these witnesses, conviction and sentence were recorded as aforesaid. The appeal did not bring any result. 5. The main attack to the judgment of conviction and sentence is alleged infirmity in the T.I. parade conducted. It was pleaded that the witnesses had opportunity to see the accused persons before T.I. parade. Learned Counsel for State however, supported the order. 6. On consideration of materials on record, it is crystal clear that plea of the witnesses having seen the accused persons prior to the T.I. parade is not acceptable. In fact, first appellate Court has clearly observed that there was no material to show that the accused persons were shown to the identifying witnesses before they were put on T.I. parade. 7. Other plea is that there was some delay in conducting T.I. parade. This plea also could not be substantiated with reference to materials on record. 8. Finally, it was submitted that sentence as imposed is quite heavy. Considering the gravity of the offence, I find no substance in this plea also. The revision fails and is dismissed. S.N. Phukan, C.J. 9. I agree