Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appeals arise from the same judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants have been convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.1.1989 at 7.15 p.m. injured informant Tapashwi Singh has gone out side the field to attend the call of nature. From there he saw accused persons coming and flashed his torch light on which accused persons surrounded him. It has been further alleged that one of the accused caught hold him and gave a bat blow and snatched his torch. Thereafter accused persons threatened Tapashwi Singh to go back to his house. It has been further alleged that accused persons tied the hands of the informant with Lungi. When they reached near the house at that time his father Lewan Singh and his relation Ram Prit Mahto were on the Verandah of the house. A lantern was burning in the Verandah. Thereafter four of the accused persons entered into the house and looted away the house hold articles including gold and silver ornaments, clothes, the box and the attaichi. It has further been alleged that they also snatched away a Titus Watch of the informant. The informant has given the description of the dacoits in detail. It has been further alleged that they identified the miscreants in the light of the torch and lantern. F.I.R. was registered against unknown and thereafter T.I. Parade was conducted and two of the accused persons were identified. Thereafter the police came and the Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded and on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged. After completion of the investigations the police submitted charge sheet. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Dewan Singh. P.W. 2 Tapashwi Singh is the informant of this case. P.W. 3 is Mrs. Kanti Sinha. Hence this appeal. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Dewan Singh. P.W. 2 Tapashwi Singh is the informant of this case. P.W. 3 is Mrs. Kanti Sinha. P.W. 4, Arun Kumar Sharma, is the Judicial Megistrate who has conducted the T.I.P. of the accused persons, P.W. 5, Ganesh Prasad, is the I.O. of this case. P.W. 6 is Ravindra Kumar Singh. P.W. 7, Ahmad Hussain, is a formal witness. 6. P.W. 1 is the father of the informant. He has stated that a dacoity was committed in his house on 3.1.1989 at 7.15 P. 7. He has further stated that he was at his Darwaja alongwith his relation Ram Prit Mahto. At that time accused persons came alongwith his one Tapashwi Singh whose hands were tied with Lungi. The dacoits entered his house and looted away the articles including gold and silver ornaments and clothes. He has further stated that a lantern was burning at that time. A Test Identification parade was also conducted. He identified two of the dacoits, namely, Shri Narain Singh and Vijay Singh. 7. P.W. 2, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on 3.1.1989 at 7.15 P.M. he has gone outside the field to attend the call of nature and he saw dacoits coming and flashed his torch light. Thereafter the dacoits surrounded him and one of the dacoits caught hold of his hands and gave a bat blow and also snatched his torch. He has further stated that the dacoits took him towards his house and tied ,his both hands with lungi. They entered into the house and looted away the house hold articles. According to him a lantern was burning in the Verandah. He identified accused Vijay and Shri Singh in the T.I. Parade. He has further stated that the accused were identified by him in the light of bio-gas and in the lantern. 8. P.W. 8 has also identified the accused in the light of bio-gas. She has further stated that she identified only Vijay Yadav in the T.I. Parade. 9. P.W. 4, Arun Kumar Sharma, Judicial Magistrate has conducted the T.I. Parade on the order of the C.J.M. Gaya. 8. P.W. 8 has also identified the accused in the light of bio-gas. She has further stated that she identified only Vijay Yadav in the T.I. Parade. 9. P.W. 4, Arun Kumar Sharma, Judicial Magistrate has conducted the T.I. Parade on the order of the C.J.M. Gaya. He has stated that suspects Vijay Yadav and Shri Singh were put on T.I. Parade after observing all the formalities of T.I. Parade and Tapashwi and Devah Singh and Ravindra Kumar identified both the suspects Vijay Yadav and Shri Singh. According to him P.W. 3 has also identified only one suspect, namely, Vijay Yadav. 10. P.W. 5 is the l.O. of this case. He has stated that he reached Village-Jamalpur Bendhu Bigha on ramour. He has further stated that he recorded the Fardbeyan of Tapashwi Singh on the basis of which F.I.R. was drawn up. He has also proved the seizure list which are Exts. 5 and 5/1. He has inspected the place of occurrence and has given the full description of the place of occurrence. In his cross examination he has stated that he did not find lantern burning at the place of occurrence. He also did not find bio-gas in working condition. 11. P.W. 6 is the brother-in-law of the informant. He has stated that he identified the suspect Vijay Yadav and Shri Singh in the T.I. Parade. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the I.O. did not find lantern and bio-gas burning at the place of occurrence when he visited the place of occurrence. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1990(1) P.L.J.R. 755 (Mangal Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). He has further submitted that T.I.P. was not valid one as the persons mixed with the suspects were not having same feature. He has further submitted that after arrest the accused persons were sent to jail after two days as such there was possibility of their showing to the witnesses. 13. The contention of the learned counsel that the T.I.P. so conducted was not valid one, but the Magistrate who conducted the T.I.P. has stated that he mixed 20 persons of same size and there was no suggestion put forth that any of the accused had typical individual features. Even it was not suggested that any of the accused had changed feature. Even it was not suggested that any of the accused had changed feature. There was nothing to establish that the accused could have been easily identified in the T.I.R when mixed with the lot alleged to be of not having similar features. The other contention of the learned counsel that after two days of the arrest the appellants were sent to jail and there was possibility of them to be shown to the witnesses. But it was natural for the I.O. to take some time before producing them in court for interrogation etc. and no suggestion was put forth to the witnesses whether the appellants were shown to them before they were taken to T.I.R That apart the appellants did not mention in their statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they were shown to the prosecution witnesses before the T.I.R was conducted. So far as contention of the learned counsel that the I.O. did not find lantern of bio-gas burning at the place of occurrence and on this point he has relied on the aforesaid decision. In the present case it is a fact that the I.O. did not see the burning lantern or bio-gas or even he did not see the Divri or lantern burning at the place of occurrence but all the witnesses have stated that at the time of the alleged dacoity the lantern was burning. The fact that he did not see the lantern, burning will not be enough to hold that the lantern lamp was not there when dacoity was committed. In the above mentioned decision the torch was only source of identification but in the present case the witnesses have mentioned that they identified the dacoits in the lantern as well as in the light of bio-gas. Merely non-production of means of identification can not be the sole ground to discard the prosecution case specially there are consistent and coherent evidence on the factum of the commission of dacoity and also on identification. That apart the F.I.R. was lodged soon after the occurrence, as such the informant and witnesses had no opportunity for falsely implicating the appellants. Moreover in this case there is no proof of enmity between the parties. 14. Learned counsel for the State has also drawn my attention to the case reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 91 (Daroga Yadav @ Daroga Ahir & Ors. Moreover in this case there is no proof of enmity between the parties. 14. Learned counsel for the State has also drawn my attention to the case reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 91 (Daroga Yadav @ Daroga Ahir & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar), in it was held that the version of witnesses would not be discarded only on the ground that there was no mention of torch in the F.I.R., in view of the fact that the witnesses had stated that they identified the accused persons in the light of torch flashed by him. It was further held that if the witnesses are trustworthy and reliable non-production of means of identification can not be the only reason to discard the case of the prosecution. Moreover in this case there are four identification against the appellant Vijay Yadav and three identification against the appellant Shri Singh, as such I am of the view that the witnesses are competent and natural and their testimony are trust inspiring and corroborative. As such I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. The court below has rightly convicted the appellants under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below is upheld. 15. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.