Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. Appellants aforesaid, except Rajesh Kumar Yadav, stand convicted in Sessions Case No. 739 of 1990 under a judgment dated 24.4.1995 recorded by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, whereas appellant Rajesh Kumar Yadav, who was an accused in the same Sessions trial, was convicted by a separate judgment dated 3.5.1995. Appellant Parsuram Paswan was convicted under sections 396 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for both the offences. Appellant Rajesh Kumar Yadav was convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and he also was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The other appellants have been convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Cods and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, each. Here it may be mentioned that the appellant Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Tuntun Choudhary (vide Cr. Appeal No. 297 of 1995) had filed appeal from jail out of whom appellant Tuntun Choudhary also filed a separate appeal through counsel in Cr. Appeal No. 328 of 1995. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief and as coming out of the F.I.R. (Ext.1) which was recorded under statement of the informant, Dr. Balmiki Singh, is that on 13.1.1989 at about 7.30 P.M. while in a room in his house he was watching television, the family members being inside the house except his son Priyadarshi Ashok, who had gone to nearby field, suddenly three persons having concealed their faces, two out of whom having pistol in their hands, entered into the room and demanded goods and keys. Informant identified one of the accused persons by voice, statute and eyes, to be appellant Parsuram Paswan. In the meantime his daughter-in-law cried from another room and when he went there he saw two persons, one having country made pistol, threatening her. His daughter-in-law gave them ornaments which she had on her. In the meantime two unknown persons entered into the room who had their faces open who took some goods. At that time dacoits also had entered into the room of his daughter and there also they demanded goods. His relative Rajiv asked daughter-in-law of the informant to give them the keys at which dacoits asked Rajiv to open the Almirah. In the meantime two unknown persons entered into the room who had their faces open who took some goods. At that time dacoits also had entered into the room of his daughter and there also they demanded goods. His relative Rajiv asked daughter-in-law of the informant to give them the keys at which dacoits asked Rajiv to open the Almirah. When Rajiv was unable to open the Almirah, one dacoit threatened to kill him at which the informant rushed towards him and caught his hand that was holding pistol and pushed him to the back side of the verandah. Thereafter informants daughter, Rani Purnashri, raised hulla. In the inner courtyard some dacoits were standing out of them the informant identified appellant Rajesh Yadav who was armed with pistol. At the hulla of Rani Purnashri this Rajesh Yadav ordered to kill her at which appellant Parsuram Paswan fired from his pistol which hit Rani Purnashri whereafter the dacoits, who were standing outside, started exploding bombs. A dacoit, identified by the informant as Deepak Yadav, hit on the back of informant with barrel of his pistol which loosened his grip over the dacoit who extricated himself from his clutches but his pistol remained in the hands of the informant. Thereafter, the dacoits fled away and the family members found Rani Purnashri to be dead. By that time his son Priyadarshi Ashok also came from the field. The dacoits also had injured members of the family, namely, Aruni, Rajiv Kumar Mishra and Madanshri Harsh. The informant had given the description of different dacoits whom he did not identify by name. 3. The F.I.R. further states that in the month of August, 1988 there was a quarrel with Rajesh Yadav, Deepak Yadav and others for demolishing the ridge of his field and at that time they had threatened either to kill or to have the dacoity committed in the house of the informant. 4. First of all I will take up the appeals preferred by Parsuram Paswan and Rajesh Yadav who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, as noted earlier. 5. Learned counsel for Parsuram Paswan, Smt. Muridula Mishra, has argued that the informant and other witnesses have supported that they had identified the dacoits in the light of the electricity which was on, inside and outside of the house. 5. Learned counsel for Parsuram Paswan, Smt. Muridula Mishra, has argued that the informant and other witnesses have supported that they had identified the dacoits in the light of the electricity which was on, inside and outside of the house. However, pointing out evidence of defence Witness No. 1, Nawal Kishore Yadav, belonging to Electricity Department at Bhagalpur, learned counsel argued that as per his evidence the electricity in that area at 7.30 P.M. was cut-off, hence this claim of identification must fall. The second argument was that informant himself, in the F.I.R. as well in his evidence, has claimed that he had identified Parsuram Paswan by his voice and his physical features as he was concealing his face, but P.W. 1 Priyadarshi Ashok, who had rushed to his home on hearing sound of bomb explosions, claimed that while fleeing away he had identified, amongst the dacoits, these two appellants, and P.W. 2 Madan Sriharsha had identified Parsuram Paswan by his face at the time when the dacoity was being committed, hence whereas identification by the informant was doubtful and vague, identification by other two witnesses also was on weak ground as, contrary to the assertion of the informant, they claimed to have identified this appellant by his face. 6. Learned counsel also argued that the wife of the informant, and one relative Aruni Kumar, who were present at the time of occurrence, were not examined by the prosecution. Smt. Mishra also pointed out that Parsuram Paswan was arrested from his house which was not natural if he was involved in the dacoity. Lastly, it was argued that this appellant was in custody since 1989. 7. Learned counsel for Rajesh Yadav submitted that enmity with Rajesh Yadav was admitted, hence this could be a case of false implication. Second argument was that though this appellant was a neighbour but, as per evidence, he had made no attempt to conceal his face. It was also placed that this appellant was identified only by witness Nos. 1, 2 and 5 but witness No. 3, Vijay Shri, and witness No. 4, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, who were living in that house, did not say about identifying Rajesh Yadav though he was a neighbour. Lastly, it was argued that this appellant is said to have only ordered for firing but the fatal shot was not fired by him. 8. 1, 2 and 5 but witness No. 3, Vijay Shri, and witness No. 4, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, who were living in that house, did not say about identifying Rajesh Yadav though he was a neighbour. Lastly, it was argued that this appellant is said to have only ordered for firing but the fatal shot was not fired by him. 8. It may be mentioned here that first judgment dated 24.4.1995 was recorded against appellants other than Rajesh Kumar Yadav but a separate judgment was recorded, for Rajesh Kumar Yadav (or Rajesh Yadav) mentioning in the later judgment that by order dated 10.4.1995, when the trial had concluded, a petition filed by accused Subhash Kumar Sharma and Sunil Kumar Yadav was allowed for separation of their case on the ground that they were juveniles, but inadvertently the typist instead of typing the name of Sunil Kumar Yadav typed the name of Rajesh Kumar Yadav which mistake was brought to the notice of the Court later when the case was fixed for hearing on sentence, whereafter Sunil Kumar Yadav was released and. Rajesh Kumar Yadav was again produced before the Court. 9. In so far as the occurrence is concerned, it has been categorically supported by witness Nos. 1 to 5. Out of them P.W. 1, Priyadarshi Ashok, was at field as claimed by the informant and this witness, as he told the court, had rushed from his field, about 200 yards away, at about 7.30 P.M. on hearing sound of bomb explosions and of firings and when he reached near the house of one Sri T.N. Singh, he found that the dacoity was being committed in his house. He has claimed that electric bulb was burning at the back of the house in the light of which he identified Rajesh Kumar Yadav, who was holding a pistol, ordering others to flee away as the girl had died. He saw Parsuram Paswan and others fleeing away. He has also said about identifying other dacoits at the T.I. Parade. He also said that appellant Rajesh Kumar Yadav used to push his catties In his field but when the catties were chased away, he used to quarrel with his father. He also said that at the boundary, thorn-plants were grown which were also cut by Rajesh Yadav who had quarrelled with the informant when he protested. He also said that appellant Rajesh Kumar Yadav used to push his catties In his field but when the catties were chased away, he used to quarrel with his father. He also said that at the boundary, thorn-plants were grown which were also cut by Rajesh Yadav who had quarrelled with the informant when he protested. This second reason also has been mentioned in the F.l.R. this witness claimed that those were the reasons why the dacoity was committed. In this cross-examination he has claimed (Para 22) that he had seen the dacoits fleeing away from a distance of 10 feet but at that time he had not seen any one else there. He has been closely cross-examined on the topography of the place near the site of occurrence but he has given satisfactory replies. He denied the suggestion that it was because of polluted atmosphere in his house that the girl was murdered but others were wrongly blamed for that. This witness has also said that when he went to his father, his father had told him about identifying Parsuram Paswan and Rajesh Kumar Yadav. Nothing has been taken in cross-examination to demolish the effect of his evidence. 10. Likewise, P.W. 2 has also fully supported the prosecution case narrating also as to how he himself and Rajiv were injured. He has said that in the inner courtyard he had seen Rajesh Yadav with pistol and Parsuram Paswan with country made katta (pistol). He said that Rajesh Yadav had ordered Parsuram to kill at which Parsuram fired which hit Rani Purnashri who was raising hulla about dacoity. He also said about identifying other dacoits at T.I. Parade. This witness said (para-9) that in the house and in the inner courtyard the electrical light was on in which light he had identified the dacoits. This witness also claimed that in August of 1988 when they had put thorn plants upon their land, Rajesh Yadav, Parsuram Paswan, Deepak Yadav and some others had uprooted that and on protest they had threatened to have dacoity committed. This witness also was closely cross-examined about topography of the site of occurrence. This witness also claimed that in August of 1988 when they had put thorn plants upon their land, Rajesh Yadav, Parsuram Paswan, Deepak Yadav and some others had uprooted that and on protest they had threatened to have dacoity committed. This witness also was closely cross-examined about topography of the site of occurrence. This witness also said that neighbouring people did not come as the dacoits were also exploding bombs and also said that he and other injured had been immediately rushed to the hospital for treatment where he had stayed during the night because of which he could meet his father next day. In cross-examination he said that they had never quarrelled with anyone except in relation to the uprooting of thorn-plants. This witness was also closely examined about identifying various accused but he appears to have replied satisfactorily. He also said that at the time the dacoits were scuffling with Rajiv he had seen a torch also with the dacoits. He has described as to how he had identified the dacoits. During cross-examination this witness (para 34) was closely examined about the motive and he gave satisfactory replies also supporting that in the nearby field there had been quarrel on account of the catties being pushed into that land. He has admitted that for such quarrels the authorities were not informed. 11. P.W. 5, Dr. Balmiki Singh, likewise has supported the case of prosecution as made out in the F.l.R. He claimed that he had identified Parsuram Paswan by his voice and his eyes. He also said about some dacoits who had left their face open. He also supported the manner in which he had snatched the pistol from one of the dacoits. From the evidence of this witness and of the investigating police officer It appears that the pistol was handed over to the police and a production report was also prepared. He also supported that his daughter, Rani Purnashri had come to the inner courtyard and had raised hulla about dacoity at which Rajesh Yadav had ordered for firing and then Parsuram Paswan fired hitting his daughter in the chest which killed her. 12. He also supported that when his son Priyadarshi Ashok, P.W. 1, had come rushing from nearby field on hearing the sound of explosion of bombs he narrated him the incident. He has also deposed about injuries caused to the family members. 12. He also supported that when his son Priyadarshi Ashok, P.W. 1, had come rushing from nearby field on hearing the sound of explosion of bombs he narrated him the incident. He has also deposed about injuries caused to the family members. He also has supported the motive of the occurrence as claimed in the first information report and also about identifying some dacoits by face who were not named by him, in the F.I.R. 13. In paragraphs 56 and 57 he was given a suggestion as to why he had falsely implicated Parsuram Paswan but that suggestion has not been substantiated. He has said (Paragraph 62) about these two appellants and two or three others persons who were in the inner courtyard where his daughter was killed. He said that these two appellants were standing side by side. This witness also supported about light coming from electrical bulbs including in the inner courtyard where a bulb was affixed to a guava tree. In cross-examination he has claimed that if he heard voice of anyone once, he could identify him by voice. 14. P.W. 3, Vijay Shri, daughter of the informant has also fully supported the occurrence as well killing of her sister. This witness has said (para 3) that after dacoity she had a talk with her father who had said that he had identified Rajesh Yadav and Parsuram Paswan. 15. P.W. 4, Rajiv Kumar Mishra has also fully supported the incident claiming that he had identified the dacoits in the light of electricity. This witness also has stated as to how he was injured and as to how he had identified the dacoits in the T.I. Parade. He also said about throwing of torch-light by the dacoits and as to how he had snatched a torch from one of the dacoits. He also said about explosion of bombs. In cross-examination he has supported that electrical light was on in the inner courtyard as well at the varandah. P.W. 11, Indradeo Singh had investigated the case who in his inspection of the place of occurrence had also found signs of dacoity who, finding of the dead body of Rani Purnashri, had also prepared the inquest report. He has also said that a pistol, torch, some bombs which apparently were left by the dacoits and sandals etc. were produced before him for which he had prepared production-cum-seizure list. He has also said that a pistol, torch, some bombs which apparently were left by the dacoits and sandals etc. were produced before him for which he had prepared production-cum-seizure list. He also said that when he had reached there, the electrical light was there and that he had prepared documents such as inquest report in the light of electricity. 16. From the evidence of the witnesses the commission of dacoity has been fully established. The witnesses have also established that Rani Purnashri was killed in course of dacoity and her death by such injury was also confirmed by P.W. 6, Dr. Kailash Jha, who had conducted postmortem upon the dead body. Post-mortem report is Ext. 2. Witnesses have proved that on order of Rajesh Yadav, Parsuram Paswan had fired the fatal shot. 17. Learned counsel for these two appellants and other appellants also have disputed the claim of the prosecution that light was burning at the time of commission of dacoity though witnesses had supported that and even the Investigating Police Officer, who had reached at the place of occurrence soon afterwards, had said In evidence that the electricity was on. 18. The defence witness No. 1, Nawal Kishore Yadav, was correspondence clerk in the Area Electrical Board, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. The place of occurrence was Mohalla Sahibganj. As per this witness the supply of electricity to different areas were noted in a register by the Swtich Board Operator. He admitted that at the time one Arun Kumar Sah was the Switch Board Operator. He claimed that from 6.55 P.M. to 7.55 P.M. in the concerned area on the date of occurrence there was no electricity. He proved entry in that regard in the hand of Arun Prasad Sah, marked as Ext. A. He also claimed that Assistant Engineer, Sri B.K. Shrivastava, also had certified that. In cross-examination he admitted that the register did not show as to in which area the electricity was being supplied. He also admitted that the entry sheets were not in a binding. 19. In view of aforesaid evidence of this witness, it remains unexplained as to why Switch Board Operator and/or even the Assistant Engineer were not brought to the witness-box. Confronting this there is overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses who have said about presence of electricity which also finds support from the evidence of Investigating Police Officer. 19. In view of aforesaid evidence of this witness, it remains unexplained as to why Switch Board Operator and/or even the Assistant Engineer were not brought to the witness-box. Confronting this there is overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses who have said about presence of electricity which also finds support from the evidence of Investigating Police Officer. D.W. 1 has given evidence only as formal witness who was neither the author of those entries nor was the certifying Officer, hence his evidence can hardly be given credence in face of evidence of eye witnesses. 20. Defence witness Nos. 3 to 4 relate to other two accused whose case was separated. D.W. 5 (wrongly mentioned as D.W. 4) relates to appellant Rudal Mandal. In view of the evidence on record I find that the claim of the witnesses that they had identified the dacoits in the light of electricity cannot but be believed. 21. Coming to the other arguments of the learned counsel, no doubt, the informant has claimed in the F.I.R. as well in his evidence that he had identified Parsuram Paswan by his voice and eyes whereas Rajesh Kumar Yadav had kept his face open. However, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have only said about identifying them and have not said about masking of their faces. Learned counsel for Rajesh Kumar Yadav argued that Rajesh being co-villager was not supposed to commit dacoity with his face open. 22. Otherwise reliable evidence about an accused committing dacoity cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they had their faces open which was not natural. This ground may have some force if such an offence is committed as dacoity simpliciter, not with any motive such as has been alleged in this case. Serious crimes including murders are being committed by persons who do that without taking care to mask their faces. Here is a case in which the witnesses have sufficiently supported the reason for committing this crime. If a person or persons are accentuated by a motive other than just taking away of movable property of another then they may care to mask their faces, or in some cases, they may not. No evidence has been brought on the record by the defence as to why the informant and his family members would falsely implicate these two appellants or others. No evidence has been brought on the record by the defence as to why the informant and his family members would falsely implicate these two appellants or others. Different suggestions about false implication have been given by defence to witness No. 1 and to witness No. 5, both unsupported by any evidence. 23. The same would be applicable about identification of these two appellants by P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1 had identified them in the process of fleeing away. Mis evidence is reliable as he had identified them from near quarters, in the light of electricity, when Rajesh Kumar Yadav had asked his accomplices to flee away, and Parsuram Paswan while he and other dacoits were actually fleeing away. Simply because at the initial stage Parsuram Paswan had his face masked does not mean that throughout the occurrence including at the stage of fleeing away, he had cared for keeping his face masked. P.W. 2 had identified them in course of dacoity and I find nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony on this point. 24. In so far as the non-examination of two witnesses is concerned, it is not necessary that all the witnesses who had seen the occurrence must be examined. If the evidence of witnesses examined is acceptable, then notwithstanding non-examination of a witness or two that would not damage the prosecution case. 25. Simply because Parsuram Paswan was arrested from his house after occurrence will not prove his innocence in view of the evidence on record. 26. In so far as Rajesh Kumar Yadav is concerned, P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not identified him. As per evidence, about 15-16 dacoits had come. When such an occurrence was taking place, not all the persons who might have witnessed the occurrence can be said to have seen all the miscreants or everything that each one of them had said or done, so as to be able to identify them. This also includes those accused whom they knew from before. Different witnesses have identified different persons in this case. This also indicates truthfulness of prosecution evidence. If the prosecution witnesses were bent upon to falsely implicate these two appellants, then the informant could have claimed that like Rajesh Kumar Yadav, the face of Parsuram Paswan was also without mask and thereafter these two witnesses could also have easily stated about identifying these two appellants. 27. This also indicates truthfulness of prosecution evidence. If the prosecution witnesses were bent upon to falsely implicate these two appellants, then the informant could have claimed that like Rajesh Kumar Yadav, the face of Parsuram Paswan was also without mask and thereafter these two witnesses could also have easily stated about identifying these two appellants. 27. In view of the discussion aforesaid, I find and hold that the witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubts that these two appellants had participated in the dacoity with firearms and, on direction of Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Parsuram Paswan had fired killing Rani Purnashri. 28. It may be mentioned that learned counsel for Rudal Mandal, in Cr. Appeal No. 169 of 1995, Shri Diwakar Prasad Kama has not advanced any specific argument, though was present in the Court at the time of hearing, but informed the Court that the appellant had undergone the sentence awarded to him and had been released. 29. However, from evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 it will appear that they had identified this appellant at the time of T.I. Parade. P.W. has said that he had identified some dacoits by face including Rudal Mandal in the light of electricity and at the time of identifying him at the Parade he had told that he also was present in the dacoity and was seen fleeing away, running. This witness has been closely cross-examined but has stood his ground. P.W. 4 had claimed that he also had identified the dacoits in the light of electrical buib, namely, Tuntun Choudhary, Rudal Mandal, Pramod Mnadal, Rajesh Kumar Yadav and two others whose case was separated. Out of them he had identified Rajesh Yadav at the time of commiting dacoity by name. This witness said that Rudal Mandal had threatened him to give the goods and valuable failing which he could be killed, which he also had told the Magistrate. 30. Here it may be mentioned that the Magistrate who had conducted the T.I. Parades of different appellants have been examined as P.W. 8 (Ujjai Kumar Dubey), P.W. 9 (Chandra Bhushan Kumar) and P.W.10 (Sajal Mandilwar), all Magistrates of first class. The T.I. Charts have been marked as Ext. 4 to 4/3. It may be mentioned that none of the learned counsel arguing for the appellants have argued about any impropriety or any irregularity in the conduct of the T.I. Parade. The T.I. Charts have been marked as Ext. 4 to 4/3. It may be mentioned that none of the learned counsel arguing for the appellants have argued about any impropriety or any irregularity in the conduct of the T.I. Parade. I also do not find any. 31. In Ext. 4 the learned Magistrate has noted that witness Rajiv Kumar Mishra had identified Rudal Mandal and this witness had said that this appellant was threatening him to kill if the goods were not given. As per Ext. 4/3 witness Mandanshri Harsh had identified Rudal Mandal stating that he had seen him fleeing away. The same manner of identification is been stated by these witnesses in the Court and they also have identified this appellant in the Court. Confronted with such evidence, testimony of D.W. 4 will not help this appellant. 32. In view of that, I find no merit in the appeal preferred by Rudal Mandal, 33. This leaves two appellants, Pramod Mandal and Tuntun Choudhary. These appellants have been identified by P.W. 4 at T.I. Parade. On behalf of appellant Pramod Mandal it was submitted that P.W. 4 had not given description about the dacoits, hence single identification by him could not be relied upon. It was pointed out that this witness had said (para 8) that he has told the police officer about identifying the dacoits but had not told him the features of those whom he had identified during dacoity. It was also submitted, which was common submission made by learned counsel for both the appellants, that these appellants were arrested on 17.1.1989 but they were identified at T.I. Parade held on 18.2.1989, about a month after their arrest, for which reason the identification by P.W. 4 could not form basis for conviction. It was further argued on behalf of appellant Tuntun Choudhary that this appellant, in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had claimed that the police officer had shown him to the witness at the police station whereafter he was kept at the T.I. Parade. It was also submitted that on 21.1.1989 also he was put on I.T. Parade but P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 who had attended the Parade did not identify him. These appellants have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Wakil Singh V/s. The State of Bihar; 1981 B.B.C.J. (SC) 139. It was also submitted that on 21.1.1989 also he was put on I.T. Parade but P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 who had attended the Parade did not identify him. These appellants have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Wakil Singh V/s. The State of Bihar; 1981 B.B.C.J. (SC) 139. It was noted by their lordships that none of the witnesses In their earlier statements or in oral evidence had given any description of the dacoits whom they were said to have identified nor the witnesses did give any of their identification marks, hence in absence of any such description it was not possible to convict an accused on the basis of a single identification as in such a case reasonable possibility of mistake in identification could not be excluded. In that case T.I. Parade was held about three and half months after the dacoity and conviction was made on the basis of identification at the T.I. Parade. In that case offence was committed on 12.3.1971 but the name of accused Shiv Shankar came in the statement of one Subhash and the Investigating Police Officer could not immediately trace him out, but could arrest him only on 14.6.1971, whereafter identification parade was held. Their lordships found room for doubt as to whether delay in holding the T.I. Parade was to enable the witnesses to identify him in the police lock up or in the jail premises, Their lordships also had noted the long interval between the time when the witnesses had seen Shiv Shankar and the date on which the test identification parade was held. 34. In these appeals, however, learned Addl. P.P. argued that in this case circumstances were different as P.W. 4 was severely assaulted by dacoits so much so that he had to be taken to the hospital where the doctor found many Injuries upon him. Therefore, having closely seen the dacoits he was in a better position to identify them who were put on T.I. Parade about a month after arrest. The date of occurrence in this case is 13.1.1989 and these appellants were arrested on 17,1.1989 and were put on the T.I. Parade on 18.2.1989. The State has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Charan V/s. State of Haryana; A.I.R. 1987 SC 1. The date of occurrence in this case is 13.1.1989 and these appellants were arrested on 17,1.1989 and were put on the T.I. Parade on 18.2.1989. The State has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Charan V/s. State of Haryana; A.I.R. 1987 SC 1. The date of occurrence in that case was 2.3.1981, a dacoity committed in a running train. Only one witness, Allah Baksh, could identify alt the accused who had faced trial in which they were convicted relying upon the aforesaid single identification. Taking notice of some discrepancy in his evidence, their lordships also noted that testimony of the witness in the Court identifying the accused was corroborated by his statement at the identification parade, hence his testimony was believed. That witness had identified Shiv Charan in the Court as well at the identification parade as the man who had put the nozzle of the pistol under his chin. 35. No hard and fast rule can be applied about exact time limit within which an accused must be put on T.I. Parade and identified by a witness failing which a single identification would not form basis for conviction. The reliability of such identification would depend upon the particular circumstances of a given case. P.W.4 in course of his evidence has said that when the dacoit was assaulting Madan Shri Harsh, he ran there and snatched the torch and started assaulting him. He said that a dacoit assaulted him with farsa at which he released the dacoit whom he had caught. He has claimed that he had identified the dacoits in the light of electric bulb. He, thereafter, identified these two appellants in the Court also claiming that he had identified them at the time of occurrence by face, as well In the T.I. Parade. In his deposition he said that Tuntun Choudhary had assaulted him on his left leg which he afso had told the Magistrate at the time of identification. He also said that Pramod Mandal had tried to assault him with iron rod. About other dacoits also which this witness had identified he had given out in his evidence as to how and when he had identified them. 36. P.W. 4 had identified these two appellants vide test identificatioa chart at Ext. 4 which has been proved by the judicial Magistrate conducting the identification parade, then posted at Bhagalpur. About other dacoits also which this witness had identified he had given out in his evidence as to how and when he had identified them. 36. P.W. 4 had identified these two appellants vide test identificatioa chart at Ext. 4 which has been proved by the judicial Magistrate conducting the identification parade, then posted at Bhagalpur. In this chart it has been noted that this witness had said that Tuntun Choudhary had assaulted him with Butt on his left leg and that Pramod Mandal had attempted to assault him with iron rod. This is what this witness has said in course of his evidence. 37. P.W. 7 is Dr. Mritunjay Kumar. As per his evidence, he had examined Rajiv Kumar Mishra, P.W. 4, and had found five injuries upon him including three incised wounds, one over right scapula and another over right shoulder. He also found two abrasions including one on the back of the left thigh, i.e. on his left leg. The injury report was marked as Ext. 3/1 .What this witness had said while identifying the two appellants before the learned Magistrate at the identification parade and in the Court, have also been supported in the evidence of P.W. 8, the learned Judicial Magistrate who had held the T.I. Parade. 38. Therefore, this witness had identified these two appellants in course of doing specific acts, in the light of electric-bulb. That he was so injured by the dacoits as claimed by him also finds support in the evidence of the doctor. In such circumtances, I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness about identifying these two appellants. 39. In the result, I find no merit in any of the appeals. The sentences also appear to be adequate. Rajesh Kumar Yadav has also been sentenced with imprisonment for life under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code for which an argument was made at the bar that he actually had not fired upon the deceased but the evidence was that he had ordered for firing. Under section 396 of the Penal Code if in course of dacoity a murder is committed then every one of those persons could be punished with death or imprisonment for life or for rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend for 10 years. Under section 396 of the Penal Code if in course of dacoity a murder is committed then every one of those persons could be punished with death or imprisonment for life or for rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend for 10 years. In view of thjs I do not find any need to interfere in the sentences in view of the proved fact that this appellant had abetted murder of the deceased girl in the prime of her youth. 40. In the result, Cr. Appeal Nos. 135, 297, 328, 169 and 125, all of 1995, are hereby dismissed. 41. Mrs. Sheela Sharma and Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, learned counsel were appointed to appear as amicus curiae in Cr. Appeal Nos. 297 of 2995 and 328 of 1995, respectively, who have argued on behalf of these two appellants. They will be paid their fees at prescribed rate by the Legal Aids Committee of this Court. 42. The learned lower Court will take measures for arrest of the appellants who are on bail and who have not yet undergone custody for the period of sentence so that they are sent to custody to complete the period of their sentence. The bail bonds of such appellants, namely, Pramod Mandal and Tuntun Choudhary, are hereby cancelled. Narayan Roy, J. 43 I agree.