ORDER Both these revisions are being disposed of in this common order, since these arise out of a single case. 2. The petitioner, Durgaipandi, in Crl.R.C.No.976 of 1995 is the accused No.2 and the petitioner, Gnana Thesigan alias Gnanaraj, in Crl.R.C.No.525 of 1995 is the accused No. 3. Both have been convicted in S.C.No.181 of 1990 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur for the offences under Sec.457 (Part-II), I.P.C. and under Sec.392 read with 397, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years respectively. Both these petitioners filed a common appeal in C.A.No.143 of 1994 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District, Srivilliputhur. The conviction and sentence was confirmed in the appeal. Hence, these revisions. 3. The facts are these: (a) P.W.3 is the Poojari of Vengai Amman Temple at Vepillaipatti village. P.W.1 is the watchman of the temple. Some days prior to the occurrence, P.W.3 Poojari of the temple happened to see the movement of strangers near the temple. Therefore P.W.3 engaged P.W.1 as a night watchman in the temple. On 2.6.1987 night, P.W.3 asked P.W.1 to sleep inside the temple and informed him that he would come in the early morning. Thereafter, P. W.3 locked the temple entrance door after asking P.W.1 to take bed inside the temple and he left for his house. Mid-night at about 1.30 on 2.6.1987/3.6.1987, three persons gained entry into the temple and tied the hands of P.W.1 after covering his body with a carpet. They also went inside the temple and committed theft of various articles such as idols, jewels, etc., and came back to P.W.1 When P.W.1 attempted to shout, they threatened him at a point of knife, if he shouted, they would stab him with the knife and kill him. Then all the accused escaped with the booty. Half-an-hour later, P.W.1 extricated himself from the ties and went to the house of P.W.3 and informed the incident. Thereafter, P.W.3 and others came to the temple and found that various idols and jewels were missing. (b) On 3.6.1987 at about 4.30 a.m., P.W.3 along with P.W.1 went to Appanayakkanpatti Police station and gave a complaint to P.W.13 Head constable. This complaint was registered in Crime No.39 of 1987 under Secs.457 and 392, I.P.C. Ex.P-2 is the complaint. Since P.W.1 sustained injuries, P.W.13 sent him to Government Hospital at Sathur. (b) On 3.6.1987 at about 4.30 a.m., P.W.3 along with P.W.1 went to Appanayakkanpatti Police station and gave a complaint to P.W.13 Head constable. This complaint was registered in Crime No.39 of 1987 under Secs.457 and 392, I.P.C. Ex.P-2 is the complaint. Since P.W.1 sustained injuries, P.W.13 sent him to Government Hospital at Sathur. (c) On 3.6.87 at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.2 Doctor examined P.W.1 and gave treatment to him. Ex.P1 is the wound certificate. (d) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. In the meantime, on 3.6.1987, he came to the scene at 5.30 p.m. and recovered M.O.27 cotton thread, M.O.28 Chappel, M.O.29 knife, M.O.30 Carpet, M.O.31 sticks and M.0.32 another carpet. He recovered blood stained Dhoti M.0.35 from P.W.3. (e) On 8.6.87, P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer received information that three idols and one ‘Ven Thambaram’ were found abandoned in the river side. Therefore he went and removed those things and handed over to the police. They are M.O.1, M.O.3, M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6. (f) On 5.7.1987, P.W.14 arrested accused No.1 and recorded confession. The admissible portion of which is Ex.P-4. In pursuance of the said confession, P.W.6 was traced out and from whom M.0.22 gold ingots and two red stones were recovered. Thereafter, accused No.1 pointed out P.W.7 and from M.O.18 Chain and M.O.24 gold ingots were recovered. (g) On 7.7.87, P.W.14 arrested accused No.2 (petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.976 of 1995). The confession was recorded from him. The admissible portion of the said confession is Ex.P-9. On his confession, P.W. 11 was traced out and from whom M.O.17 and M.0.26 were recovered. Besides these, accused No.2 took P.W.14 to the Ettur Vattam and removed Pillayar Idol from the tank and handed over to P.W.14. (h) On 7.7.1987, P.W.14 arrested accused No.3 Gnana Thesigan, (petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.525 of 1995) and recorded confession. The admissible portion of the said confession is Ex.P-7. Then, the accused No.3 took them to P. W.9 from whom M.O.20 M.O.21 and M.O.34 were recovered. Thereafter, all these recovered articles were identified by P.W.3 at the police station. P.W.14 recorded additional statement from P.W.3. (i) On 29.7.1987, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused, namely, accused Nos.l to 3, under Sec.457, 392 read with 397, I.P.C. (j) During trial the accused gave a statement under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. stating that they were innocent. Thereafter, all these recovered articles were identified by P.W.3 at the police station. P.W.14 recorded additional statement from P.W.3. (i) On 29.7.1987, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused, namely, accused Nos.l to 3, under Sec.457, 392 read with 397, I.P.C. (j) During trial the accused gave a statement under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. stating that they were innocent. On consideration of these materials, the trial court convicted them and sentenced as referred to above. In the appeal as well, this finding was confirmed. Hence, these revisions. 4. Mr.Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for-accused No.3 who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.525 of 1995, would submit at length and point out various discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. It is also submitted that there is no acceptable and admissible evidence as against the petitioner and that therefore the courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. To put it in a not shell, Mr.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel, would contend that the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be acted upon, as there was no test identification parade and mere recovery of the idols and jewels after one month of the occurrence would not connect the accused to the main offence and in the absence of any presumption, under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, the petitioners cannot be convicted for offence under Sec.392 read with 397, I.P.C. According to the learned senior counsel, at the most the petitioners could be convicted for 411, I.P.C. in the event of evidence of recoveries of stolen property. 5. Mr.Kumeresan, the learned counsel for the respondent, would in support of the judgment of the courts below, vehemently contend that there is no need for identification parade, that the absence of identification parade need not always be fatal for the prosecution, and that there are innumerable materials available in this case which were relied upon by the courts below, and that there is no reason to reject the factual findings rendered by the courts below. 6. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is the absence of the identification parade which is fatal to the prosecution. He cited the following two decisions in order to substantiate his point. (1) State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.Shukla State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.Shukla, 1980 Crl.L.J. 965. (2) Kanan v. State of Kerala Kanan v. State of Kerala, 1979 Crl.L.J. 919. 7. He cited the following two decisions in order to substantiate his point. (1) State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.Shukla State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.Shukla, 1980 Crl.L.J. 965. (2) Kanan v. State of Kerala Kanan v. State of Kerala, 1979 Crl.L.J. 919. 7. In this context, it is relevant to quote the findings with reference to this aspect given by the appellate court. 8. In the light or his findings on the basis or the appreciation of the evidence given by P.W. 1 both in chief and in cross-examination, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be of any use in his favour. Of course, it is held in the citations referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the identification of a parade is valueless. 9. At the same time, it should be relevant to note that, in Harbhajan Singh v. State of J. & K. Harbhajan Singh v. State of J. & K., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1814: 1975 Crl.L.J. 1543 and Jadunath Singh v. State of U.R Jadunath Singh v. State of U.R, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 363: 1971 MLJ. (Crl.) 602 as referred to by the learned Government Advocate, it is held that the absence of identification parade cannot be held to be always fatal to the prosecution. It is all depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. The factual finding given by the Courts below is that P.W.1 knows the accused even prior to the occurrence, though he was not able to give the details of the name and place of those persons. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner (A3) would cite the authorities, Diraviam, IN RE. Diraviam, IN RE. 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 163 Joga Gadn v. State of Gujarat Joga Gadn v. State of Gujarat, 1982 Crl.L.J. 1579, Amar Singh and Nagappa Dondiba v. State of Karnataka Amar Singh and Nagappa Dondiba v. State of Karnataka, 1980 L.W. (Crl.) 1270 and contend merely, because there is recovery on the confession given by the accused, that the petitioners could not be convicted for the main offence on the basis of presumption under Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act. As far as this proposition of law is concerned, there is no dispute. As far as this proposition of law is concerned, there is no dispute. It is a well established principle of law that in the case of this nature, apart from recovery there must be some further evidence establishing connection between the accused and the main crime. 12. In the instant case, there is not only recovery but also the evidence of P.W.1 whose statement was found to be reliable by both the courts below. Besides this, it is seen from records that accused No.1 was arrested on 5.7.1987 and on his confession, the stolen properties including jewels were recovered from P.Ws.6 and 7. On the basis of the statement given by accused No.1 on 5.7.1987, immediately on the next day, i.e., on 6.7.1987, accused No.2 was arrested and on his confession, not only the jewels were recovered from P.W.11, but also the idols concealed near the tank in Ettur Vattam village were recovered and handed over. On the basis of this information, immediately on the next day, i.e., on 7.7.1987, accused No.3 was arrested and on confession, P.W.9 was traced out and from whom the other stolen properties have been recovered. Within a month of the occurrence, all the properties were recovered including the idols. In the light of these chain of events and the materials collected from the witnesses, I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner (A-3) that there is no acceptable evidence as against the petitioner (A-3) and the other accused. 13. It is not the case of the accused that the jewels are belonging to them. No doubt, it is true that non-explanation of the possession of the stolen property would not automatically fasten liability of these accused for the main offence. But in this case, as narrated earlier, apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, three accused have been arrested in separate places one after another and the properties involved have been recovered from the persons who were identified by the accused. So, the totality of the circumstances brought out by the prosecution in this case would lead to a inescapable conclusion that the petitioners have perpetrated the main crime and they are liable to be convicted for the offences with which they are charged. 14. So, the totality of the circumstances brought out by the prosecution in this case would lead to a inescapable conclusion that the petitioners have perpetrated the main crime and they are liable to be convicted for the offences with which they are charged. 14. Mr.Bhiman, representing Mr.Nellaiappan, appearing for A-2 in addition to the points raised by the counsel appearing for A-3 would contend that the occurrence had taken place in the night time, that in the printed F.I.R. it is mentioned that the occurrence took place on 2.6.1987 night, whereas the complaint shows that it was at 1.30 a.m. on 3.6.1987, that the F.I.R. contains more details which would show that the same was prepared after consultation and confabulation, that there is no material to show that how the accused gained entry into the temple when the main entrance of the temple was locked and that therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the petitioner (A-2). 15. The counsel would also cite the authority, Raju v. State of Maharashtra Raju v. State of Maharashtra, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 169 It is held in this decision that the identification of the accused by the witness in court after 1 1/2 years was not reliable. 16. He cited another authority, (1993)1 S. C. C. (Supp.) 395, In this decision, it is held that the participation of the accused is doubtful because of the failure of the prosecution to lead convincing evidence about the identity of the accused as decoits. 17. Both the decision would not be of any use to the petitioner (A-2). In the first decision, the evidence regarding identification of the accused was found-to be unreliable. The reliability question does not arise in the revision, as it is held by both the courts below that P.W.1's evidence is acceptable. 18. In the second decision, it is held that the case was found to be doubtful because identify was not established. It is further held in the said decision that there is not even a corroboration in the form of recovery. In the light of those facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court entertained doubt. That is not the case here. 19. As regards the petitioner (A-2), there is one more material available, namely, the recovery of Pillaiyar Idol from him. In the light of those facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court entertained doubt. That is not the case here. 19. As regards the petitioner (A-2), there is one more material available, namely, the recovery of Pillaiyar Idol from him. It is also to be noted that the petitioner (A-2) took the police force to the place nearby the tank and unearthed the idol and handed it over to the police. 20. Apart from this, P.W. 11 also would say, as mentioned earlier, that the petitioner came and handed over the jewels to him. All these jewels and idol were identified by P.Ws.1 and 3, both during the investigation and in the course of trial. 21. The other matters relating to the aspect of more details in the F.I.R. and discrepancy in the printed F.I.R. would not cause any dent in the genuineness of the case of the prosecution, as it is factually found by both the courts below that the occurrence had taken place in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses and that the petitioners were participated in the crime. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, none of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners would appeal me, so as to interfere with the findings of facts in these revisions. 23. In the result, the revisions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.3244 and 4880 of 1995 stand dismissed. 24. If the petitioners are on bail, the bail is cancelled and they are directed to surrender to undergo the remaining period of sentence. B.S.-----Petitions dismissed.