Judgment 1. These criminal revision cases are being disposed of by this common order, as the petitioners in these revisions are the accused in single case. 2. The petitioner Ganesan (A-l) and the petitioner Vaidyanathan (A-3) were convicted for the offence under Sec.457, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.200, in default, to undergo R.I. for two months, under Sec.392, I.PC. to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.200 in default, to undergo R.I. for two months and under Sec.397, I.PC. to undergo R.I. for seven years in S.C.No.89 of 1989 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. They filed appeal in C.A.No.212 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate court while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners. Hence these revisions. 3. The facts are these: (a) P.W.1 Singaravelu was residing along with his sister RW.2 Saraswathi Achi, a widow, at Udayarpalayam. She was having in her possession the jewels weighing about 200 to 250 sovereigns, silver articles about 7 kgs and pledged jewels about 150 sovereigns. P.W.1 was working as Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture at Jayankondam. Daily he used to go to office by leaving the house at 9.00 a.m. and after finishing his office work come back home at Udayarpalayam at 8.00 or 9.00 p.m. (b) On 21.5.1985 as usual, P.W.1 came back from his office at 9.00 p.m. After finishing the food, at 10.00 p.m., he took bed in the main hall. At that time, RW.2 Saraswathi Achi, her sisters daughter P.W.4 Uma Maheswari, RW.5 Panchavarnam, servant maid and P. W.6 Rajam also after their meals took bed in the hall and Mutram. At about 1.00 a.m. (mid night) the petitioners and another (A-1 to A3) gained entry after pending the window rods and cutting the same and came into the hall. P.W. 1 suddenly heard the sound and woke up. By the time all the other inmates got up from the bed. They saw the tubelights were burning. A-1 to A-3 were found standing nearby P.W. 1 with knife, aruval and iron rod. P.W.I cried and other witnesses also were trying to make sound. But, the accused came near them with the weapons and threatened them that they would murder them. They saw the tubelights were burning. A-1 to A-3 were found standing nearby P.W. 1 with knife, aruval and iron rod. P.W.I cried and other witnesses also were trying to make sound. But, the accused came near them with the weapons and threatened them that they would murder them. One of the accused caught hold of the tuft of P.W.2 and intimidated her that he would kill her by knife which he had carried in his hands. The accused also threatened P.W.4 Uma Maheswari and P.W.2 that if the key was not given, they would be raped. Then, A-3 having a weapon in his hand snatched the chain from P.W.3. After getting the key, all of them took the jewels kept in alimarh and other boxes and pushed the witnesses into a room and locked it up and ran away. (c) Few minutes later, after knowing that the accused left the place, the witnesses cried aloud. P.W.7 Sekar and P.W.10 Kannapiran, the neighbours came and went inside the house through the backyard. When they found that the witnesses were in the locked room, they broke the lock, entered inside and rescued them. Thereafter, P.W.20, the Inspector of Police received the complaint and investigated the matter. After some days, the accused were arrested and properties were recovered. Out of the three accused, the identification parade was conducted for two accused. A-1 Ganesan was arrested only in 1987. Thereafter, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet. 4. The trial court, after considering the materials, convicted the accused for the offences referred to above. The conviction was confirmed by the lower appellate court. These revisions by A-1 Ganesan and A-3 Vaidyanathan are before this Court as against the judgments of both the courts below. 5. Mr.G.Krishnan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Ganesan (A-1) would contend that the petitioner (A-1) was convicted by the courts below in the absence of any evidence whatsoever against him. He would also submit that there was no identification parade as far as A-1 is concerned, that no recovery was made from him, that A-3s statement implicating A-1, the petitioner, cannot be a substantive evidence and that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and instead, the petitioner (A-1) has been convicted without any material. 6. 6. Mr.Packiaraj, the counsel appearing for the petitioner Vaidyanathan (A-3), would contend that retracted confession of A-3 cannot be the basis of the conviction, and though there was a recovery of the confession of the petitioner from two persons, one of them by name Selvaraj was not examined as a witness. Moreover, the identification parade was not conducted in accordance with the procedure and as such, the petitioner (A-3) was liable to be acquitted. 7. Mr.Gunasekaran, the learned Government Advocate, in reply to the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners (A-1 and A-3), would contend that all these points were urged before both the courts below and the same have been answered in detail and as such, the impugned judgments are unassailable. 8. I have heard and carefully considered the submissions and scrutinised the records placed before this Court. 9. No doubt it is true that the lower appellate court has not discussed points in detail, as pointed out by Mr.G.Krishnan, the learned senior counsel appearing for Al. However, the judgment of the trial court would go to show that there has been a metculous and through analysis and appreciation of the evidence let in by the witnesses on the side of prosecution. 10. P.W. 1 to P.W.23 were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exs.Pl to P.43 were filed and M.0.1 to M.0.162 were marked. On the side of the defence, Exs.Dl to D5 were marked. The trial court in its judgment has discussed threadbare in every minute details and concluded that the offence is proved against the petitioners. 11. Let me first refer to the submissions advanced by Mr.G.Krishnan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner (A 1). 12. According to this counsel, there is no material whatsoever as against the petitioner except A3 ‘s confession recorded under Sec.164, Cr.P.C. made before the Magistrate. It is also pointed out by the learned senior counsel, on the strength of the decisions in Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar , 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 274 (S.C.), P.Pragasam and Sugumaran v. State Sugumaran v. State , 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 240, (Mad.), that the confession of one accused cannot be the substantive evidence as against the co-accused and at any rate, it cannot form the basis of conviction. 13. 13. As far as this proposition is concerned, there is no difficulty in accepting the same, as it is settled law that the confession of the co-accused cannot be the substantive evidence. Sec.30 of the Evidence Act provides thus: “30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly trials for same offence: When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.” The reading of the section would make it clear that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against the other accused persons at the trial, but could only be used for lending reassurance if there be any other substantive evidence to be utilised or acted upon. 14. In the light of the situation, it is to be found out whether there is any other substantive evidence from which the prosecution can have support for its case, apart from the confession. 15. It is an admitted fact that there is no name of the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. P.W.I, the brother of Saraswathi Achi, who is the owner of the house, gave the F.I.R. which did not give more details except mentioning about committing of robbery of the valuables like jewels, silver articles, etc. from the house by three persons. 16. It is also not disputed that there was not identification parade as far as the petitioner (A-1) is concerned. Admittedly, there was also no recovery made from the petitioner (A-1). But, these admitted factors would not lead to the direct conclusion that there are no other materials as against the petitioner (A-1). 17. The whole reading of the case gives out the following materials: (i) P.W.4, Uma Maheswari, would say that all the three persons were smoking, while they committed the heinous act. P. W.2 would state that while the house was looted, one accused asked another accused as “TAMIL” Though this is not stated in the F.I.R., it is elicited from P. W.20 that this fact has been spoken to by P.W.2 even during the course of investigation. P. W.2 would state that while the house was looted, one accused asked another accused as “TAMIL” Though this is not stated in the F.I.R., it is elicited from P. W.20 that this fact has been spoken to by P.W.2 even during the course of investigation. P. W. 1 could not have heard this, since he stated in his evidence that he was suffering from short of hearing and that even during the course of occurrence he requested the accused to permit him to take his hearing-aid from the alimarh and to wear the same. (ii) The occurrence had taken place on 21.5.1985. A-3 Vaidyanathan was arrested on 16.6.1985, Though, in the meantime, it was found out through the Finger Print Experts opinion that A-2 Rajendran was involved in the occurrence, the first man who was arrested in this case was A-3. He gave confession to the police leading to the recovery of the stolen jewels. Apart from that, on his information, the other share which was taken by A-1 was recovered from the backyard of the house of the petitioner (A-1). These jewels were identified by the witnesses. On 25.6.1985 A-3 gave 164 confession to the Magistrate. This confession cannot be said to be exculpatory, since he is also said to be involved in the offence and subsequently, he got the share. Therefore, the complicity of the petitioner (A-1) came to be known to the investigating agency immediately after the arrest of the petitioner Vaidyanathan (A-3) on 16.6.1985 itself. Besides this, the recovery of the stolen jewels not only at the instance of A-3, but also the recovery of stolen jewels which were hidden in the house of A1. This factor is spoken to by P.W.20 and other mahazar witnesses. (iii) Though the complicity of A-2 Rajendran was known even before the arrest of A-3, the investigating agency was able to arrest A-2 only subsequent to the arrest of A-3. So, Finger Print Experts opinion got confirmed by the information given by A-3, who implicated A-1 and A-2. Thereafter, A-2 was arrested at whose instance the other share of stolen jewels were recovered. All these jewels were identified during the course of identification even before the arrest of A-1. 18. Only on 19.1.1987 A-1 was arrested and the properties found in the house at Trivandrum were recovered. Thereafter, A-2 was arrested at whose instance the other share of stolen jewels were recovered. All these jewels were identified during the course of identification even before the arrest of A-1. 18. Only on 19.1.1987 A-1 was arrested and the properties found in the house at Trivandrum were recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1, out of the sale proceeds of the other stolen jewels, has purchased those articles. For this, there is no admissible evidence, as there is only material available, the confession by A-1 made to the police. But, it cannot be said that there is no other material as against the petitioner (A-1) except the confession of A-3 implicating A-1. 19. It is also to be noticed that A-1 who is involved in so many other cases including a murder case and in respect of that case, he was detained in Cuddalore Jail from where he escaped. It is also seen that he murdered one Bank Officer and committed robbery in his house. This also is established by the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that when the accused threatened her, he intimidated that he came to her house directly from the place where he committed the murder of the Bank Officer and robbery in his house. Therefore, these materials also should be taken into consideration along with A-3s statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. as a lending re-assurance. 20. In view of What is stated above, I am unable to accept the contention of the senior counsel that there is no admissible evidence as against the petitioner (A-1). 21. The learned counsel, placing reliance on the decisions in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, (1982)1 S.C.C. 700 and Kanan v. State of Kerala Kanan v. State of Kerala , 1979 Crl.L.J. 919: A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1127 would contend that the testimony of a witness, who identified the accused for the first time in the court without knowing him previously, in the absence of any identification parade, would be valueless and unreliable. 22. This also is a well-laid principle. In fact, P.W.23, the investigating officer stated that he has not arranged for identification parade in respect of A-1 Ganesan, since the witnesses in this case already knew him. 22. This also is a well-laid principle. In fact, P.W.23, the investigating officer stated that he has not arranged for identification parade in respect of A-1 Ganesan, since the witnesses in this case already knew him. This statement, in the light of the evidence let in by the witnesses, cannot be accepted because none of the witnesses would say that they knew the accused prior to the occurrence. Therefore, the identification parade is very much necessary, in order to make the evidence of eyewitnesses reliable, as pointed out by the Apex Court. 23. At the same time, it is also held by the Apex Court in Jadu Nath Singh v. State of U.R Jadu Nath Singh v. State of U.R, A.I.R 1971 S.C. 363 and Harbhajan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Harbhajan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A.I.R 1975 S.C. 1814 that the absenceof identification parade is not necessarily fatal and at any rate, the omission to hold the identification parade as not always fatal when there is any evidence to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime. Therefore, it cannot be a rule that once there is no identification parade even when there is other evidence, the prosecution case should be thrown out. 24. Furthermore, the occurrence had taken place from 1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. Admittedly, the tube lights were burning. All the accused with weapons had threatened each of the witnesses and conversed with them. One of the accused caught hold of the tuft of P.W.2 with aruval. Thereafter, when P.W.2 evaded to give the key, they also made gestures to commit rape on P.Ws.2 and 4. Then, they searched for the key and took out the same. Later, they opened the box, alimarh and other things and removed all the articles and packed up in a lungi and thereafter, all the witnesses were pushed into another room where they were locked in. Therefore, the accused have taken sufficient time to finish their job when the electric lights were burning in the main hall. It is not a case of seeing the accused at a glimpse who rushed out after finishing their job. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the identification by the witnesses in the court cannot be rejected in toto. 25. It is not a case of seeing the accused at a glimpse who rushed out after finishing their job. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the identification by the witnesses in the court cannot be rejected in toto. 25. As stated earlier, the principles regarding the identification parade referred to by the Apex Court in various decisions would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, there are other materials as discussed above. Therefore, there is nothing wrong to take into consideration of the evidence of the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who identified A1 in the court. 26. Furthermore, there was an identification parade for A-2 and A-3, in which they were correctly identified by the very same witnesses. Suppose if there was an identification parade for A-1 and in that parade if the witnesses were not able to identify him, then the case would be entirely different. In this case, there was no requisition for identification parade by the investigating officer on the mistaken impression that A-1 was already known to witnesses. However, in the light of the other materials, I cannot hold that the failure to conduct the identification parade would affect the credibility of the prosecution. 27. As regards A-3, Mr.Pakiaraj would contend that merely on the basis of confession statement of A-3, he cannot be convicted. This submission, in my view, does not merit acceptance. As discussed earlier, A-3s confession is not only inclupatory but also on his confession, the stolen jewels were recovered. It is also pointed out by the counsel for A-3 that no weapon was used, so as to attract Sec.397, I.P.C. This also would not be correct, in view of the fact that the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the statement of A3 would make it clear that they have used weapons. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner (A-3) would merit consideration. 28. That apart, sufficiency of evidence, in my view, cannot be gone into in the revision as against the conviction by the trial court, confirmed by the lower appellate court. As decided by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the scope of revision is so limited. 28. That apart, sufficiency of evidence, in my view, cannot be gone into in the revision as against the conviction by the trial court, confirmed by the lower appellate court. As decided by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the scope of revision is so limited. Unless the findings given by the courts below are perverse, this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual conclusions arrived at by both the courts below on appreciation of the materials placed before. 29. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the courts below. 30. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed.