Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. In the intervening nights of 13th/14th of January, 1984 while the family members were fast asleep, the unidentified miscreants gained their access in inner apartment of the house, on breaking door planks and having coerced the house inmates, not only relieved the female members of their ornaments but also removed from the house, a number of household articles which include radios, cycle, watches, blankets, utensils, wearing apparels and also ornaments, and made good their escape. 2. The prosecution was launched on behest of Shiv Shankar Singh, one of the house inmates, and as usual, the investigation commenced, during which the police officer entrusted with onerous task of carrying out investigation, visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, effected recovery of part of booty from the house of Gaya Kurmi, put the suspects on test identification parade, and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the court. 3. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses and among them P.W. 7, Marachhiya, though one of the house inmates, did not claim to have identified any of the miscreants. As for, Hari Lal Prasad (P.W. 8), he turned volte face to the State about recovery of any incriminating object from the house of Gaya Kurmi. Ram Swarup Prasad (P.W. 1) was tendered by the State and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Besides them, the State examined other house inmates, two Judicial Magistrates, who conducted the test identification proceeding on two different dates, Laxman Das (P.W. 12), the District Consolidation Officer, who conducted the test identification proceeding in respect of the house belongings, which were put on test identification parade. The State examined also the police officer. 4. The defence of the appellants before the court below and also this Court had been their false implication due to previous animosity and also the house inmates, who claimed their identification at test identification parade, being quite conversant with the appellants, preceding the date of holding the test identification parade. The State examined also the police officer. 4. The defence of the appellants before the court below and also this Court had been their false implication due to previous animosity and also the house inmates, who claimed their identification at test identification parade, being quite conversant with the appellants, preceding the date of holding the test identification parade. The trial court, however, on consideration of the evidences that were placed on record and also due regard being had to the contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants, while negativing the defence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt against Gaya Kurmi, Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh, Kameshwar Nonia and Prahlad Kurmi under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years. Gaya Kurmi suffered conviction also under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. 5. Before appreciating the contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants, which were made to assail the finding recorded by the trial court, first I wish to analyse the evidence placed on record on behalf of the State. Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (P.W. 5) while reiterating his narration made before the police, rendered parallel statement before the trial court about commission of dacoity in his house in the night of incident by unidentified miscreants, who having coerced the house inmates, removed the house belongings, which also include Gagara and water pot of nickel. The witness, who claimed identification of Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh and Kameshwar Nonia during the test identification parade that was held on 21st of January, 1984, stated also about test identification proceeding that was held on 6th February, 1984, in which he participated and made identification of Gaya Kurmi, and that apart, the witness would state also about identification of Gagara and water pot of nickel, during the test identification parade of articles. The witness identified those in court also, who were identified during the test identification parade. Now l may switch over the testimony of another significant witness, namely, Shyamdeo Singh (P.W. 1), and like Shiv Shankar Singh he too claimed identification of Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh and Kameshwar Nonia during the test identification parade held on 21st of January, 1984. The witness identified those in court also, who were identified during the test identification parade. Now l may switch over the testimony of another significant witness, namely, Shyamdeo Singh (P.W. 1), and like Shiv Shankar Singh he too claimed identification of Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh and Kameshwar Nonia during the test identification parade held on 21st of January, 1984. This witness, however, claimed identification of one Prahlad Kurmi also, during the test identification proceeding that was held on 6th of February, 1984. Now I may switch over to the evidence of Dinesh Prasad Verma (P.W. 10), the investigating officer of the case, who got laurel of recovery of part of booty from the house of Gaya Kurmi only after a day of the incident, as the witness would state in most emphatic term about effecting seizure of Gagara and water pot of nickel, from the house of Gaya Kurmi during the search of his house. The prosecution would rely also on the testimony of Laxman Das (P.W. 12), who conducted test identification proceeding of the articles, and this witness would assert about identification of these articles not only by Shiv Shankar Singh (P.W. 5) but also by Shyamdeo Singh (P.W. 1), Indrapati Devi (P.W. 2), Champa Devi (P.W. 3) and Kamlawati Devi (P.W. 4). The State examined also Rabindra Prasad Sinha (P.W. 6), who conducted the test identification proceeding on 6th of February, 1984, in which Gaya Kurmi and Prahlad Kurmi were identified by two witnesses. D. N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate (P. W. 9) was another witness, who conducted the test identification proceeding held on 21st of January, 1984 and he would render coherent narration as that of identifying witnesses about identification of Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh and Kameshwar Nonia. 6. Now having switched over to the criticisms that were made at bar on behalf of the appellants l have noticed the learned counsel arguing that since the miscreants were shown to have concealed their faces with the aid of piece of clothes, it was most unlikely of the house inmates to identify them during the test identification parade. 6. Now having switched over to the criticisms that were made at bar on behalf of the appellants l have noticed the learned counsel arguing that since the miscreants were shown to have concealed their faces with the aid of piece of clothes, it was most unlikely of the house inmates to identify them during the test identification parade. However l find that though such narrations were made in the recitals of the F.I.R. by informant, that was conspicuously wanting in evidence at the trial, and that apart, it was not suggested to the witnesses that their faces were covered fully, to exclude all possibility of their identification by house inmates. About articles seized from possession of Gaya Kurmi similar arguments were pressed into service about their being little likelihood of their identification, in view of any identification mark on them, and for that, evidence of Indrapati Devi can be usefully referred to, who has assigned good reasons for identification of the utensils that were shown to have been recovered from the house of Gaya Kurmi. True, it is that these articles are available in all houses and also in the market, yet in view of assertions made by the witnesses, who are house inmates, l find no good and valid reasons to discard the probative value of their evidences. The trial court too had precisely relied on the testimony of witnesses who claimed identification of either the appellants or the articles during the test identification parade. 7. The last argument canvassed at bar on behalf of the appellants was that since the prosecution was launched in the year 1984 and since then about two decades have lapsed and also that the appellants have suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about 20 years, in case finding of guilt recorded by the court below was endorsed by this Court, these mitigating circumstances that Bachcha Singh remained in custody for about 18 months, Kamta Singh and Kameshwar Nonia suffered custody for about 15 and 18 months respectively, Prahlad Kurmi suffered custody about 16 months and Gaya Kurmi too suffered custody for about 18 months, be given consideration, by this Court. The analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, which have been spelt out in the preceding paragraphs would not fail to suggest that while against Kamta Singh, Bachcha Singh and Kameshwar Nonia there had been identification of two witnesses, namely, Shyamdeo Singh (P.W. 1) and Shiv Shankar Singh (P.W. 5), against both Prahlad Kurmi and Gaya Kurmi, there had been identification of one witness only. The case of Gaya Kurmi was, however, quite distinct from Prahlad Kurmi, as in case of former, though there being solitary identification, there has been recovery of booty also from his house shortly after dacoity, which buttresses also his participation in commission of dacoity. No accusation about holding booty was, however, attributed, to Prahlad Kurmi, who has suffered custody for about 16 months, 8. Regard being had to these mitigating circumstances, the contention raised at bar and also the evidences placed on record, while Prahlad Kurmi is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, appeal in respect of other appellants being meritless, is dismissed. Since appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and the court below shall take all coercive step for their apprehension to consign them in custody to serve the sentences awarded to them. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with modification indicated above.