B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27. 12. 2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 420 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities act-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad, by which the learned additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge convicted accused Mohd. Shafi for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 of I. P. C. , and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 332 of I. P. C. , and rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 333 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the sole accused in S. C. No. 420 of 1998 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under essential Commodities Act-cum-III additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. He was put up for trial before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge for the offences punishable under sections 332 and 333 of I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is ;- PW. 1 Mohd. Khaisar was the driver and PW. 2 Mohd. Abdul Samad was the conductor of the bus bearing No. AEZ 2191 of Mehdipatnam Depot of A. P. S. R. T. C. P. W. I was driving the bus from Charminar to Golkonda Fort on 15. 11. 1997. The bus reached Bazar Ghat by 7. 30 p. m. While the bus was taking turn at Bazarghat cross roads, the appellant/accused came on a scooter bearing No. AP 9a 3932 from opposite direction at high speed and questioned PW. 1 about his manner of driving the bus. PW. 1 replied that he was driving the bus properly and cautiously. The appellant/accused without minding the reply started abusing PW1. PW. 2, the conductor of the bus tried to pacify the appellant/ accused, who did not heed to the words and fisted PW. 2. It is further alleged that the appellant/accused boarded the bus and beat PW. 1 on his face and in the meanwhile the passengers intervened and prevented the appellant/accused from giving further blows on PW. 2. The bus proceeded further and reached Neilopher Hospital. 2. It is further alleged that the appellant/accused boarded the bus and beat PW. 1 on his face and in the meanwhile the passengers intervened and prevented the appellant/accused from giving further blows on PW. 2. The bus proceeded further and reached Neilopher Hospital. The appellant/accused followed the bus on the scooter and parked his scooter opposite to the bus. He picked up a stick and tried to beat PW. 1. In the meanwhile PW. 2 intervened and received injuries on right hand. The passengers interfered and pacified the matter. PW. 1 went to Nampally Police station and presented Ex. Pl report. PW. 7 received Ex. P1 report on 15. 11. 1997 at 8. 00 p. m. , and registered a case in Crime no. 168/97 and issued Ex. P6 F. I. R. He examined PW. 1 and PW. 2 and recorded their statements and sent them to Hospital for medical examination. He proceeded to the scene where he examined PW. 4 and recorded his statement. PW. 5 Dr. V. Harinadha Reddy, civil Assistant Surgeon, Government osmania Medical College, Hyderabad medically examined PW. l and PW. 2 on 15. 11. 1997 at about 8. 45 p. m. , and issued exs. P2 and P3 Wound Certificates. He found the following injuries on the person of PW. 1:- 1) One contusion over right zygoma and tenderness positive (area just near the eye is called zygoma) 2) Contusion over right forearm; and it is also tenderness positive. He classified both the injuries as simple in nature. He opined that the injuries found on him could be possible with any blunt object or by fisting. The injuries found by him on the person of PW. 2 are:- 1) Swelling and tenderness of left scrotum, 2) Soft tissue swelling with tenderness on the lateral aspect of dorsum of right hand, 3) Abrasion measuring 3 cm x 1 cm just infront of the left ear. He opined that the injury No. 1 is possible by fisting or kicking on the scrotum, and injury No. 2 is possible by using hard and blunt object like stick. He classified the injury No. 2 as grievous in nature as the X- ray report revealed fracture of right 5th meta carpal bone. PW. 7 M. Sudarshan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nampally Police Station apprehended the appellant/accused on 17. 11. 1997 at 9. He classified the injury No. 2 as grievous in nature as the X- ray report revealed fracture of right 5th meta carpal bone. PW. 7 M. Sudarshan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nampally Police Station apprehended the appellant/accused on 17. 11. 1997 at 9. 30 a. m. , and brought him to nampally Police Station. It is stated that the appellant/accused confessed the offence and led PW. 7 and panchas to the place of concealment of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. In pursuance of the disclosure of statement of the appellant/ accused, MO. 1 stick came to be seized under the cover of Ex. P5 panchanama in the presence of PW. 6 Mohd. Chand and another. After completing investigation LW. 10 guravaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police laid charge-sheet in the Court of XV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned magistrate took the case on file as prc. No. 11 of 1998 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan sessions Judge took the case on file as sessions Case No. 420 of 1998 and made over the case to in Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge framed the charges under Sections 332 and 333 of I. P. C. , read over and explained the same to the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs. P1 to P6 and MO. 1. On behalf of the appellant/accused neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 332 and 333 of I. P. C. , convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 332 of I. P. C. , and rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 333 of I. P. C. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 420 of 1998 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act-cum-III additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad, the accused has filed this criminal Appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the identification of the appellant/accused for the first time before the Court without there being a test Identification Parade is from its nature inherently a weak character and therefore the conviction of the appellant/accused based on the identification by P. Ws. l to 3 in Court is not unsustainable. It is also contends by him that failure of the investigating Officer to seize the motor cycle on which the assailant of PW. l and PW. 2 allegedly arrived the scene of occurrence is fatal to the prosecution and therefore the appellant/accused is entitled to acquittal. Replaced reliance on the decisions of supreme Court in Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 1999 SCC (Crl) 378, and State of U. P. v. Ashok Dixit, 2000 SCC (Crl) 579. In the first cited decision, the Supreme Court held that as a matter of prudence, it is highly unsafe to accept the identification of the accused in Court many years after the occurrence when the test identification parade made shortly after the occurrence has not been accepted. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme court observed that the accused was shown to the witnesses and the photograph of the accused was also published in local Newspapers and that apart witness having seen the face of the accused while opening the door it was not possible to remember the same for the purpose of identification after five years of the occurrence. In the second cited decision, the witness who identified the accused was a child witness and at the time of occurrence she was 9-1/2 years old. The occurrence took place on 8-8-1982 but her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 10-8-1982 though after the occurrence she was residing with her uncle which was at a stone s throw from the house of the deceased. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Additional public Prosecutor submits that PW. 1 and PW. The occurrence took place on 8-8-1982 but her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 10-8-1982 though after the occurrence she was residing with her uncle which was at a stone s throw from the house of the deceased. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Additional public Prosecutor submits that PW. 1 and PW. 2 are the injured witnesses and their identifying the accused as their assailant is quite natural and no reasons are made out by the defence to disbelieve the testimony or motive for their false implication in the case. It is also contended by him that failure to hold a Test identification Parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Malkhansingh v. State of M. P. , 2003 SCC (Crl) 1247. ( 6 ) THE principal submission urged before the Court below as also before me is whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained on the basis of identification of the appellant by P. Ws. 1 to 4 in Court without holding a Test Identification Parade in the course of investigation. While the appellant contends that the identification in Court is not preceded by a Test identification Parade is of no evidentiary value, the prosecution contends that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court, and therefore, the value to be attached to such identification must depend on facts and circumstances of each case. No general rule could be laid that such identification in the Court is of no value. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of Supreme Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration, vide decisions of Supreme court in See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. , air 1958 SC 350 , Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A. P. , AIR 1960 SC 1340 , Budhsen v. State of U. P. , AIR 1970 SC 1321 , and rameshwar Singh v. State of Jandk, 1971 scc (Crl) 638. In Jadunath Singh v. State of U. P. , 1971 SCC (Crl) 124, the submission that absence of test identification parade in all cases is fatal, was repelled by Supreme court after exhaustive consideration of the authorities on the subject. In Harbajan Singh v. State of Jandk, 1975 SCC (Crl) 545, though a test identification parade was not held, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the basis of the identification in Court corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. In Harbajan Singh v. State of Jandk, 1975 SCC (Crl) 545, though a test identification parade was not held, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the basis of the identification in Court corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. It is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in Court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in court. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the identification of the witness in Court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in Court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for the Courts of fact to examine. ( 7 ) PW. 1 Md. Khaisar and PW. 2 Md. Abdul Samad are injured in the occurrence. On the date of occurrence, they were conducting the bus from Charminar to golkonda Fort. They testified that the appellant/accused came on a scooter when the bus reached near Bazar Ghat cross roads, hurled abusives against PW. 1 questioning his driving and fisted him with hands. They further testified that the appellant/accused fisted PW. 2 when he came in rescue of pw. 1 They also testified that the appellant/ accused followed the bus to a distance of one furlong where he again attacked PW. 1, the driver of the bus. Both PW. l and PW. 2 were sent to Hospital for medical examination. PW. 5 Dr. V. Harinadha Reddy medically examined them and issued Exs. P2 and P3 Wound Certificates. The testimony of PW. l and PW. 2 that they sustained injuries in the incident is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. They being the injured are the best witnesses to speak of the incident. They unmistakenly identified the appellant/accused as the person who came on the scooter and dealt blows on them while they were conducting the bus from charminar to Golking fort. The incident lasted for sufficiently long time to leave the impression of identification marks in the minds of the victims. ( 8 ) PW. They unmistakenly identified the appellant/accused as the person who came on the scooter and dealt blows on them while they were conducting the bus from charminar to Golking fort. The incident lasted for sufficiently long time to leave the impression of identification marks in the minds of the victims. ( 8 ) PW. 3 Zameel Ahmed is one of the passengers traveling in the bus conducted by P. Ws. 1 and 2 on the date of the incident. He categorically stated that the appellant/ accused was the assailant of P. Ws. 1 and 2. PW. 4 Md. Shafi owns a bed repair shop at bazar Ghat. He saw the appellant/accused arguing with the driver of the bus. It is testified by him that the appellant/accused came to his shop and picked up MO. 1 stick and went towards the bus. The evidence of pw. 3 and PW. 4 corroborates the testimony of PW. 1 and PW. 2 who are the victims in the incident. It is the version of PW. l that the appellant/accused came on a scooter bearing No. AP 9a 3932. Nothing is suggested to PW. 1 or to the Investigating officer (PW. 1) disputing the ownership of the scooter by the appellant/accused. It goes without saying that the appellant/accused did not dispute of his owning a scooter bearing No. AP 9a 9932. The incident occurred at about 7. 30 p. m. , on 15. 11. 1997. PW. 1 presented a report before the Station house Officer, Nampally Police Station at 8. 00 p. m. , on the same day. It contains the scooter number and detailed account of the incident. The time gap is so narrow to put any distorted version of the incident introducing the number of the scooter. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found the appellant guilty of the offences under sections. 332 and 333 of I. P. C. I do not see any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Trial Court. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant/ accused is aged 25 years and he is father of two small children and he is the sole bred earner in the family and so he deserves to be given lenient view in the quantum of sentence. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant/ accused is aged 25 years and he is father of two small children and he is the sole bred earner in the family and so he deserves to be given lenient view in the quantum of sentence. Indeed the appellant/accused pleaded the same and sought for lenient view with regard to sentence. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that sentence of imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Section 332 of i. P. C. , and three months for the offence punishable under Section 333 of I. P. C. , while maintaining the fine imposed by the Trial court, would meet the ends of justice. ( 11 ) BUT for the reduction of imprisonment from six months to two months for the offence punishable under Section 332 of I. P. C. , and from two years to three months for the offence punishable under Section 333 of I. P. C. , this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment passed in Sessions Case no. 420 of 1998, dated 27. 12. 2000 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act-cumin additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. The accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is hereby directed to surrender before the special Judge for trial of cases under essential Commodities Act-cum-III additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad within fifteen days from today, failing which non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued against him and after surrender or arrest as the case may be, he shall be committed to jail to serve the sentence awarded to him.