Judgment 1. Both the appeals arise from a common judgment dated 28/02/1990 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 298/113 of 1988/1989, by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass which can be narrated with bravity. Kalian Bus bearing No. BHG 4911 while going from Arrah to Sasaram on 2/02/1986 was intercepted in the midway by unknown criminals near village Tarah who pointed their guns at the driver and desisted him from moving the vehicle further. Shortly after the vehicle was stopped, it was alleged that miscreants ransacked the occupants of the vehicle, robbed their belongings which includes coats, cash, wrist watch, attache, spectacles, woollen shawl etc. and escaped with the booties and thereafter the driver took the bus to Mokha police station where on strength of statement of Dudheswar Lal, driver of the bus, a police case had been instituted and the investigation commenced. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the wit- nesses, put suspects on test identification parade, seized some stolen articles including the coat from the person of Mahendra Chaudhary and on explanation of investigation laid charge-sheet in the Court against the appellants and Dinanath Tiwary, Randhani Singh and Shyam Bihari Choudhary. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses and the trial Court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses including that of the victims, police officers and also a Judicial Magistrate who conducted T.I.P., rendered verdict of guilt, convicted the appellants, acquitting rest of them, and sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The finding recorded by the trial Court has been assailed by the counsel for the appellants on premises that as Didheshwar Lal, the author of the early version of the prosecution was not examined at trial, all credibility of the prosecution case was lost. 3. The finding recorded by the trial Court has been assailed by the counsel for the appellants on premises that as Didheshwar Lal, the author of the early version of the prosecution was not examined at trial, all credibility of the prosecution case was lost. The contention was raised that though Raghubansh Prasad Singh was also suggested to have participated in the test identification parade that was held in jail premises on 14/02/1986, the said Rajbansh Prasad Singh for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was not examined at the trial and in this backdrop if identification of the appellant Kapoorchand Chaudhary shown to have been made by the said Raghubansh Prasad Singh during the test identification parade was excluded from consideration, the sole testimony of Kishun Singh was left on the record which would not sustain conviction of the appellant in absence of corroboration from any sources. The contentions were raised on behalf of appellant Mahendra Chaudhary that the complicity of the appellant was suggested on solitary testimony of Sri B. K. Sahay, P.W. 1 who claims to have identified the appellant Mahendra Choudhary while he was allegedly moving in the premises of Court of Subdivisional Magistrate on 15/02/1986. Learned counsel urged that even if the prosecution version about identification of Mahendra Chaudhary by Sri Braj Kumar Sahay with the aid of cost that the appellant had put on his person and said to be belonging to Sri Braj Kumar Sahay was considered to be true on its face value, such identification of the appellant by a witness after lapse of a fortnight of incident would not inspire confidence and the prosecution version on this score must be considered to be incredible and the last argument canvassed on behalf of Kapoorchand Chaudhary was that as it was suggested to the witnesses who claimed to have identified the appellant during test identification parade that the appellant was shown to the identifying witnesses proceeding holding of test identification parade while being brought to Hajat from the jail, the significance of the test identification parade is completely lost. 4. 4. Though the prosecution examined six witnesses at trial, evidence of B. K. Sahay, P.W. 1, was confined to identification of Mahendra Chaudhary while the latter was allegedly moving in the premises of the Court of sub-divisional Magistrate with a cost on his person on 15/02/1986, Sri Kishun Singh Marua, P.W. 2 was one of the witnesses who participated in the test identification parade and this witness narrates with assertion to have identified only Kapporchand Chaudhary though Sri Kant Rai, Judicial Magisrate, P.W. 5 who conducted test identification parade in the jail premises would state that both Kappor-chand Chaudhary and Dinanath Tiwary were identified by Kishun Singh, P.W. 2. Though Sri Kant Rai, Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 5 would State in his evidence about the identification of Shyam Bihari Choudhary and suspect Rajnath Chaudhary by Sudhir Singh, P.W. 3 during test identification parade, this witness turned volte face to the prosecution about identification of any suspect. Dukhi Prasad P.W. 4 denied to have identified any of the miscreants who participated in the Commission of dacoity in the night of incident. It is admitted at bar that Mahendra Chaudhary was never put on test identification parade ostensibly for the reason that he was identified by Braj Kumar Sahay while moving in the Court premises on 15/02/1986 wearing a cost on his person which allegedly belonged to Sri Sahay. As has been discussed, though recoveries were shown to have been affected from person of Mahendra Chaudhary in presence of Raghubansh Prasad Singh also, evidence of the said Raghubansh Narain Singh was wanting on the record probably for the reason that he was dead. The attention of Sri Braj Kumar Sahay P.W. 1 was drawn by the defence as to whether he had rendered particulars of his cost to the police in his early version, to which he replied in affirmative. However, the evidence of the Investigating Officer would believe the assertion made by Sri Brij Kumar Sahay P.W. 1, Had particulars/description of cost or Sri Braj Kumar Sahay which he lost at the hands of the miscreants been rendered in the early version before the police, that would have carried significance. However, the evidence of the Investigating Officer would believe the assertion made by Sri Brij Kumar Sahay P.W. 1, Had particulars/description of cost or Sri Braj Kumar Sahay which he lost at the hands of the miscreants been rendered in the early version before the police, that would have carried significance. However, since description of cost is conspicuously wanting in the early version of Sri Sahay which he rendered before the police, fastening of guilt against appellant Mahendra Chaudhary on sole shaky testimony of Braj Kumar Sahay would be far fetched and on this score I find that the conviction of Mahendra Chaudhary on that count was not sustainable. 5. So far as the finding adverse to Kapporchand Chaudhary rendered by the trial Court was concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant was identified by Kishun Singh, P.W. 2 both during test identification parade and also in the Court. True it is that appellant Kapoorchand Chaudhary alias Kapporchand Moniya was also identified during test identification parade by Raghubansh Prasad Singh as it would appear from the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate but rightly that evidence cannot be taken into consideration though can be considered for collatral purposes, and in that view of the matter virtually and practically case of appellant Kapoorchand Chaudhary was not a case of solitory identification. The only point for determination in the circumstances was that as to whether appellant Kapoorchand Chaudhary had participated in the commission of dacoity and was property identified by identifying witnesses. The appellant in question who was stranger to the witnesses namely Kishun Singh, P.W. 2 and if evidence of this witneses about identification of appellant in Court was taken into consideration coupled with the test identification parade, it cannot be said that this witness was erring in identification of this appellant. The miscreant were not suggested to have covered their faces with mask. As was stated by the witnesses, they had seen the miscreants in the light of the vehicle that was burning. Though bald suggestions were given to the identifying witnesses about the appellant having been shown to them proceeding the test identification parade, but there was no evidence on the record to testify the assertion made on behalf of the appellant. As was stated by the witnesses, they had seen the miscreants in the light of the vehicle that was burning. Though bald suggestions were given to the identifying witnesses about the appellant having been shown to them proceeding the test identification parade, but there was no evidence on the record to testify the assertion made on behalf of the appellant. The trial Court has noticed with the aid of the lower Court records that this appellant was apprehended in connection with another case of Shiv Sagar Police station and suspecting his complicity in the dacoity, he was got remanded in this case and put on test identification parade along with other suspects when he was identified by P.W. 2 Kishun Singh and late Raghubansh Prasad Singh. The suggestion given to P.W. 2 about having witnessed the appellant preceding the test identification parade while being brought to Court Hajat from jail was also denied by him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant had lastly urged that since the appellant had faced rigour of the prosecution for about 14 years, lenient view for awarding sentence to the appellant be taken by the Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that it was a case of road dacoity in whch innocent passengers of a bus quite unaware of the catastrophe lurking over their heads were robbed of their belongings, I fail to persuade myself to agree with reasonings advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Taking into consideration all the facts, the finding recorded by the trial Court as against appellant Mahendra Chaudhary is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall also stand discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. The conviction and sentence imposed on appellant Kappor-chand Chaudhary are however maintained. While Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 1990 in respect of Kapporchand Chaudhary is dismissed, Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 1990 in respect of Mahendra Chaudhary succeeds. Order accordingly.