Judgment D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, J. 1. The sole appellant in this appeal was put up for trial along with two other accused before the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.T. No. 161/87, charged of the offence under Section 396, IPC. The trial Court found the three accused including the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 396, IPC, but acquitted Surendra Singh. 2. The appellant preferred this appeal, while two separate appeals were preferred by Bipin Paswan and Raja Ram, being Cr. Appeal Nos. 162/88 and 171/88 respectively. Those two appeals were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment and order, dated 13th November, 1992. Unfortunately, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that another appeal arising out of the same judgment and order was pending before this Court and therefore, this appeal could not be heard earlier. This appeal has been preferred from jail and, therefore, Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee appointed Sri Abhay Shankar Singh/Advocate, to argue this appeal on behalf of the sole appellant and the learned counsel has been of good assistance to us. 3. The prosecution case is that on 31st October, 1986 at about 7.15 p.m., Shiv Kumar Prasad, the deceased was at his grocery shop along with his son Subodh Kumar, PW 10, the informant and two sales-men, namely, Gopal Prasad, PW 2 and Murari Prasad, PW 3. A customer, Munilal, PW 6 was also present in the shop. The prosecution case is that all the four accused armed with pistol entered his shop and one of them pointed his pistol towards the informant while the other pointed the pistol towards his father. They took away Rs. 12/- from one of the customers and despite search of the informant they could get nothing. One of the miscreants slapped the informant while the another took out Rs. 300-400/- from the pocket of his father and asked him to open the container kept behind him, which his father opened and from the said container also the miscreants took cash. When the miscreants asked the father of the informant to open another container, his father refused and raised hulla. One of the miscreants, who was near the father of the informant fired at his father killing him. When the miscreants asked the father of the informant to open another container, his father refused and raised hulla. One of the miscreants, who was near the father of the informant fired at his father killing him. The other miscreant also fired causing injury to the informant and one of the customers, Munilal, PW 6. Thereafter, the miscreants fled away. 4. Fardbeyan of PW 10, the informant was lodged promptly, but it did not mention the names of any one of the accused since they were unknown to the informant. In course of investigation, suspicion fell on four persons including the appellant, and two others whose appeals have been disposed of by this Court, and one Surendra Singh, who has been acquitted. A TI Parade was held in which the appellant was correctly identified by the three witnesses, namely, the informant PW 10, and his two servants, PWs 2 and 3. They also identified the appellant in Court. With the assistance of the counsel for the appellant, we have read the records placed before us. 5. Since the miscreants were unknown to the informant, absence of their names in the fardbeyan does not in any manner affect the veracity of the prosecution case. A TI parade was held and on the basis of the result of the said TI Parade, the appellant has been convicted. 6. Counsellor for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, charge under Section 396, IPC has not been proved. His submission is that since there were only four miscreants, who committed the offence, there was no justification for framing the charge under Section 396, IPC. It appears that the same contention was urged before the Division Bench of this Court in the two appeals preferred by the other two convicted persons. But, this Court held that the evidence on the record established the complicity of two more persons, who were standing outside the grocery shop where the occurrence took place. We have perused the record and it appears from the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 10 that they had stated in course of their deposition that some other persons were outside the shop and in fact they were asking others to hurry-up. We have perused the record and it appears from the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 10 that they had stated in course of their deposition that some other persons were outside the shop and in fact they were asking others to hurry-up. Therefore, it appears that there were five persons at least, who were involved in the commission of the offence and, therefore, framing of charge under Section 396, IPC cannot be faulted. 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW 6, the customer, Munilal has stated in course of his deposition that one of the four culprits, who entered the shop fired causing him injury. But, the testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 10 consistently is that the shop which hit the informant, PW 10 and Munilal, PW 6 was fired by the miscreants waiting outside the shop. There is, therefore, evidence on the record to establish that some of the miscreants, who stood outside also actively participated in the commission of the offence. 8. The TI Parade was held on 11.11.1986, under the supervision of PW 7, Onkar Nath Sinha, a Judicial Magistrate. Nothing has been shown to us which may point out any irregularity in holding of the TI Parade. The witnesses had ample opportunity of noticing the features of the culprits since they had entered the shop and were inside the shop for some time. The identification of the appellant by as many as three eyewitnesses proves the charge against him. In fact, while identifying the appellant, it has been stated by all of them that the appellant was the person, who had fired at the father of the informant, namely, Shiv Kumar Prasad, who succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. 9. Having considered all aspects of the matter, we find that the case of this appellant stands on the same footing as the case of the accused Bipin Paswan and Raja Ram, appellant in Cr. Appeal Nos. 162/88 and 171/88 respectively, whose appeals have been dismissed by this Court. In fact, the case of the appellant herein in is worse inasmuchas he has been identified as the person, who actually fired at the deceased. Having perused the records carefully, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant is justified and no interference is called for. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. 10. In fact, the case of the appellant herein in is worse inasmuchas he has been identified as the person, who actually fired at the deceased. Having perused the records carefully, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant is justified and no interference is called for. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. 10. Since, Sri Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate has ably assisted us. We direct the Legal Aid Committee to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of assistance fee.