JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - The above noted jail criminal appeals have been preferred by each of the convicted accused persons in S.T. No. 105/3 of 1995 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuchinda. Each of the Appellants in the same trial were booked for the offences u/s 457 and 395, I.P.C. While pleading innocence to the said charge Appellants contested against the case of the prosecution and on conclusion of the trial the trial Court as per the impugned judgment dated September 20, 1995 found the four out of six accused persons (the present Appellants) guilty of the said offences and convicted them thereunder. The trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 457, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 395. After their conviction since the Appellants filed appeals from the jail, therefore, such appeals have been given the nomenclature of Jail Criminal Appeals, it be noted here that Appellant Debendra Bag (Jail Criminal Appeal No 305/95) was granted bail by this Court on 30.11.1995 and on the basis of that order he is dr. bail and ret in jail. The rest of the Appellants as Mr. S.P. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in jail Criminal Appeal No. 310/95 states have already suffered the imprisonment inside the jail. 2. Since the aforesaid four appeals are against the common judgment of conviction they have been listed for analogous hearing and disposal. In that respect, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants though advanced separate argument but all of them raised the same issue and similar contention while challenging the impugned order of conviction. Therefore, all the four appeals are disposed by this common judgment which will abide the result in all the appeals. 3. According to the case projected by the prosecution, in the night between 28/29th August. 1994 dacoity was committed in the house of Jayadev Patel (P.W. 12) and also in the adjoining house of his brother by the culprits numbering about seven inasmuch as the inmates of the hunted house could see seven persons participating in committing dacoity. 3. According to the case projected by the prosecution, in the night between 28/29th August. 1994 dacoity was committed in the house of Jayadev Patel (P.W. 12) and also in the adjoining house of his brother by the culprits numbering about seven inasmuch as the inmates of the hunted house could see seven persons participating in committing dacoity. It is further alleged that culprits were being armed with various weapons like Bhujalis and toy pistols and they used such weapons while committing the dacoity and also inflicted injuries on four of the inmates, namely, Mahadev Patel (P.W.11), Jhasaketan Patel (P.W.13), Demphapadma Patel (P.W.10) and Golabati Patel (not examined). The FIR was lodged at 3 A.M. in the occurrence night. In course of investigation on 16th September, 1994 on the basis of suspicion police arrested some persons and that includes the Appellants. While in police custody, on interrogation in presence of witnesses like P.W.6 Jogendra Prasad Choudhury, P.W.9 Bansidhar Behera and Anr. the Appellants made statements u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and gave recovery of some stolen articles as per seizure list Exts.1 to 5 and such material objects have been marked M.Os. I to XXXI. On 27.9.1994 in the T.I. parade conducted inside the Subjail, P.W.1 Hamit Kumar Patel, besides the above named P.Ws.12 and 13 identified the Appellants as the culprits. In the T.I. parade of the seized articles also the inmates of the house identified the ornaments etc. (the material objects) and in view of such evidence on record the investigating officer (P.W.14) submitted chargesheet. P.W.8 is the Doctor who granted the injury certificates Exts. 9 to 12 and his opinion Ext. 13 after examining the seized Bhujali. Ext. 16 is the spot map. In all, prosecution rened on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14, Exts. 1 to 16 and the M.Os. in support of the proof of charge against the accused persons. On the other hand, the accused persons advancing the common defence relied on the deposition of P.Ws.12 and 9 in Anr. Sessions Case (in which they were also facing the trial for a similar charge) to bring certain discrepancies and contradictions relating to the manner in which the seizure u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was made. 4. On the other hand, the accused persons advancing the common defence relied on the deposition of P.Ws.12 and 9 in Anr. Sessions Case (in which they were also facing the trial for a similar charge) to bring certain discrepancies and contradictions relating to the manner in which the seizure u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was made. 4. So far as the case of the prosecution regarding the T.I. parade of the accused and the properties are concerned, the defence had taken a consistent stand that such persons and the properties were shown to the witnesses before such T.I. parade and therefore the T.I. parade of the persons and the properties lacks credibility. 5. On assessment of such evidence on record and on due consideration of the contention of both the parties the trial Court, inter alia, recorded the findings that evidence of the prosecution witnesses has remained unshaken regarding a dacoity having been committed in the house of P.W.12 in which some inmates were injured by the dacoits and that aspect of the prosecution case was proved without any substantial dispute or doubt. The trial Court further recorded the finding that the aforesaid complained act makes out a case for both the offences under Sections 457 and 395, I.P.C. inasmuch as there was house trespass in the night by the culprits so as to commit an offence i.e. dacoity and thereafter dacoity was committed in the alleged manner. After recording such findings the trial Court considered the crucial issue as to whether there is any evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. On assessment of evidence on record while discarding the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 relating to T.I. parade on mere suspicion that they might have a chance to see the accused persons after their arrest and before conducting the T.I. parade because both the witnesses had gone to the Police station. The trial Court heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and T.I. parade report to find credibility in that evidence regarding the Appellants being four out of seven culprits in the gang of dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of P.W.12. As a matter of corroboration he also referred to the seizure list Exts. 1 to 5 and evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9 read with the evidence of P.W.14 and the evidence of other inmates of the house regarding. As a matter of corroboration he also referred to the seizure list Exts. 1 to 5 and evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9 read with the evidence of P.W.14 and the evidence of other inmates of the house regarding. T.I. parade of the stolen properties and found the evidence of such witnesses to be corroborating and credit worthy relating to identification of the stolen articles. From the aforesaid two circumstantial evidence the trial Court found and recorded the conclusion that the Appellants were amongst the dacoits who participated and committed dacoity in the occurrence night. So far as the two accused persons, namely, Dillip Kumar Sunani and Dharmadas Sunani are concerned, the trial Court found no credible evidence to connect them with the alleged crime in absence of their identification in the T.I. parade though there are some recovery from one of them. 6. It is the common argument of Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in each of the appeals that evidence of P.W.1 regarding identifying the Appellants in the T.I. parade is not above board inasmuch as no care had been taken at the stage of conducting the T.I. parade to eliminate dissimilarity in the dress and not lining up people of same age group and height. They further argue that when P.Ws.12 and 13 had the chance of seeing the culprits before participating in the T.I. parade and when in his evidence in cross-examination P.W.10 has stated that "Myself and my family members had gone to the Police-station" and that all the family members includes P.W.1 and therefore, no different standard should have been adopted while assessing the evidence of P.W.1 on T.I. parade. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, repelling the aforesaid argument states that the trial Court had adopted an extremely cautious method to discard the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 relating to T.I. parade of the suspected persons on mere suspicion of chance of prior seeing them. He argues that in fact, the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 or any other evidence or record does not give any picture much less clear picture about P.Ws.12 and 13 having chance to see the arrested persons in the police station after their arrest and before participating In the T.I. parade. He argues that in fact, the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 or any other evidence or record does not give any picture much less clear picture about P.Ws.12 and 13 having chance to see the arrested persons in the police station after their arrest and before participating In the T.I. parade. Since the trial Court has taken excessive care to eliminate evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 for merely going to the police-station on any other date, therefore, the standard adopted by the trial Court in assessing the evidence cannot be questioned. He further argues that evidence of P.W.10 does not show or suggest that the family members in the house of P.W.12 had gone to the police-station at or after the arrest of the accused persons. On the other hand, on a consistent reading of the evidence in that respect it can very well be concluded that, that witness had tried to state that after reporting the incident of dacoity all the family members had gone to the police station where they made their statements. 7. On due consideration of the aforesaid rival contention of the parties and on perusal of the relevant evidence on record this Court finds that evidence of P.W.10 in cross-examination cannot be interpreted as a statement to make out a meaning that P.Ws.1. 12 and 13 had gone to the police station after arrest of the accused persons. On the other hand, when the trial Court has already discarded the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 on the issue of T.I. parade of the accused persons, this Court does not desire to re-assess that evidence contrary to the assessment made by the trial Court. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 this Court finds that there is nothing in that evidence to show or suggest that P.W.1 had opportunity to see the suspected persons on any date after their arrest till he was confronted with the identification of the culprits in the T.I. parade conducted inside the jail. Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 is not discardable on that ground. 8. Wearing of different kind of dresses and all persons being not of same height is not shown in evidence to be so significant to make the Appellant/easy victims of T.I. parade. Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 is not discardable on that ground. 8. Wearing of different kind of dresses and all persons being not of same height is not shown in evidence to be so significant to make the Appellant/easy victims of T.I. parade. Such a plea gather momentum for due consideration of Court on credibility of the T.I. parade when it is brought on record that the dresses of the suspects or their height was so distinguishable that they could have been easily identifiable being different from other standing on the line. It is difficult for the investigating/jail, authorities to collect requisite numbers of person of same neigh and similar physical features matching with the suspect in all respect. Therefore such a circumstances alone is not sufficient to discard the test identification made. Of Court it should be the attempt of the authorities and officers involved in arranging the T.I. parade to see that dissimilarity in dresses and physical features, as far as practicable be avoided to ensure no dissimulate identification parade. In this case there is no evidence on record to indicate that because of dissimilarity of dresses or physical features of the person lined up for T.I. parade, the Appellants became easy target/victims For that reason, this Court finds no substance as such criticism on the T.I. parade and the T.I. Parade Report (Ext.6). 9. One significant thing remarkable in that context is that identification of Appellants by P.W.1 has not been challenged by them except challenging that on the ground of prior seeing them before the T.I. parade. Once evidence on record does not lead to such a happening, the identification of Appellants by P.W.1 is found credible and trustworthy. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also argue that prosecution has not explained anything for non-participation of P.Ws.4, 5 and 10 in T.I. parade when they were also victims of the dacoity and each of them had the occasion to see one or the other dacoit. They argue that such circumstance indicates that the accused persons have been victimised with pseudo identification by P.W.1 They further argue that when the victim of the dacoity like P.Ws.4. They argue that such circumstance indicates that the accused persons have been victimised with pseudo identification by P.W.1 They further argue that when the victim of the dacoity like P.Ws.4. 5 and 10 have not identified the Appellants in course of their evidence in the trial because by then the accused persons were known to be booked for the offence, that circumstance should not have been ignored or sidelined by the trial Court while considering the credibility of P.W.1 vis-a-vis evidence of P.Ws. 4,5 and 10 relating to participation of the Appellants as dacoits. Learned Standing Counsel in that respect states that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters in a criminal trial and since the quality evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to bring home the allegations against the Appellants the aforesaid argument of the Appellants is not sufficient to interfere with the order of conviction. 11. Though contention of the prosecution to Judge a case on the quality of evidence is correct but to Judge the quality such evidence has to be perused the, circumstances involved in the case has to be visualised and the context in which such evidence was adduced has to be considered appropriately. As per the aforesaid argument of the Appellants P.Ws.4. 5 and 10 did not participate in the T.I. parade conducted to identify the culprits, it is evident from the record that said three witnesses are female inmates of the house in which dacoity was committed. They belong to interior rural area in the erstwhile district of Sambalpur. That might have been one of the probable reason for the family members not to take the female persons to the jail premises to participate in the Test Identification Parade. 12. In her examination-in-chief (paragraph 1 of her deposition) P.W. No. 4 has stated that she can identify some of the culprits and she also identified Appellant Balabhadra Kak (Appellant in J. Crl. A. No. 310 of 1995) as one of the dacoits. Similarly, P.W. No. 5 made statement in her examination-in-chief and identified Appellant Dillip Mangar (Appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1995) by alleging that culprit removed the stone fitted NAKAPHULA (nose ring) from her nose. It, thus, appears from such evidence on record that P.Ws.4 and 5 though were able to identify the culprits but they were not allowed to participate in the T.I. parade. It, thus, appears from such evidence on record that P.Ws.4 and 5 though were able to identify the culprits but they were not allowed to participate in the T.I. parade. Under such circumstance, the above noted criticism against the merit of the prosecution case or on the issue of credibility of evidence of P.W., No. 1 on T.I. parade does not improve the circumstance in favour of the Appellants in any manner. In other words, this Court does not find existence of adequate circumstance to discuss the evidence of P.W. 1 on T.I. parade because P.Ws.4, 5 and 10 did not participate in that T.I. parade or because evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 was not relied on by the trial Court. On the other hand, this Court on independent perusal of the evidence of P.W. No. 1 finds that such evidence is credible on identification of the Appellants in the T.I parade. 13. In the above context it is appropriate to note the sequence that it is no body's case that the Appellants or the acquitted accused or those other dacoits (who could not be caught till trial of the case).had any prior acquaintance with the P.W. 12 or his family member's (who have figured a: witnesses for the prosecution) P.Ws 1.4.5.10.12 and 13 are all victims of dacoity committed in their house. It is not within the normal human conduct for such witnesses to book and hook with punishment unknown persons like the Appellants for the offence of dacoity by leaving the real culprit to roam around. On reading the evidence on record this Court gathers the impression and opinion that such is not the conduct of the victim of dacoits-cum prosecution witnesses of course, that cannot be the sole ground to accept the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses as gospel truth. On the other hand such evidence is liable to be scrutinised, assessed and appreciated if it comes within the categories of evidence as "proved" "."disproved" or 'not proved' as defined in Section 3 of Evidence Act with due reference to relevant provision in Chapter II of that Act and at that time the conduct of a prudent man be to be displayed by using the sense of understanding as a man Jiving in the Society and not totally being influenced or guided by theory and theory atone having influence of Utopian thought. At such stage Court has to use the head and not the heart to generate meaning from the evidence to record finding on fact. 14. The T.I. parade report left to itself is not a substantive evidence to prove the accusation unless the corresponding oral evidence is made available on record and such oral evidence is creditworthy or trustworthy. In the case at hand, such evidence as already noted is found to be acceptable being trustworthy. The T.I. parade reports and evidence of P.Ws.1. 12 and 13 are acceptable on record to prove the case of dacoity against the Appellants. Since the trial Court has excluded the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 on the T.I. parade, therefore, this Court does not take assistance of that evidence in support of the T.I. parade. In that respect evidence of P.W. No. 1 is also sufficient to prove the relevant aspect and that is how the theory advanced by learned Standing Counsel is acceptable that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which proves, or disproves or not proves the Criminal charges. This Court has already explained the reason for concurring with the trial Court on T.I. parade and credibility of evidence of P.W. No. 1 to prove that Appellants were amongst the dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of P.W. No. 12 and his brother in the occurrence night. 15. No other ground is raised in challenging the impugned order of conviction. On assessment of evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court this Court finds no reason to take a different view relating to proof of charge against the Appellants for the alleged offences, beyond all reasonable doubt. Under such circumstance, the Criminal Appeals bears no merit and accordingly, all the four Jail Criminal Appeals stand dismissed. Appellant Debendra Bag (in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 1995) if will hot surrender to custody within a period of one month, the concerned Court shall take steps to apprehend him and for his remand to Jail custody to serve the rest part of the sentence. Final Result : Dismissed