JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeals impugn the judgment dated December 12, 1999 of 1 the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Man Singh Murder Case) Jaipur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302/34 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer six Months Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 394 IPC To suffer Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution case a written report (Ex.P-30) was lodged at Police Station Maiviya Nagar, Jaipur on September 10, 1993 by informant Karma Nidup stating therein that in the evening at 7.30 PM he went to girls hostel to meet his wife Chodan Dorgi and they were walking along the road behind the girls hostel. About 200 meters from the girls hostel three man attacked on them, on the point of knife they took the informant and his wife in jungle and made to sit them near the boundary wall. They took his watch, money and student ID card. During the course of questions he was hit on the lace several times. His hand was placed between stones and was hit with another stone. Thereafter Chodan was taken by one assailant into the jungle and he was left with other two assailants. The informant took chance by hitting one assailant with the stone pushed another into the bushes and called his wife but he could not near anything. The third assailant shouted about his escaping, then he part hack for help as the assailants said that they wanted to kill him and spare the girl after making her blind. On arrival of the police and other students to the spot she was found injured and unconscious. Later at SW hospital she was declared dead. On the basis of such information, a case under Sections 341, 323, 302, 394 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was hied and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Murder Case) Jaipur. Charge under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 341 and 323/34 IPC was framed against the accused who denied the charge and claimed trial. On completion of investigation charge sheet was hied and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Murder Case) Jaipur. Charge under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 341 and 323/34 IPC was framed against the accused who denied the charge and claimed trial. Accused Hari Narayan and Chiranji Lal died during the pendency of trial and proceedings against them got dropped. As many as 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. However, no defence evidence was adduced. On hearing final submission the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. M.C. Jain learned counsel for the appellant vehemently canvassed that Karma Nidup who did not identify the appellant in the Identification Parade was deliberately withheld by the prosecution. The evidence collected against the appellant is not sufficient to establish the c- Inge under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that the student ID card of Karma Nidup was recovered at he instance of appellant and testimony of Ramji Lal (PW.7) and Babu Lal (P 1.15) connects the appellant with the crime. 5. We have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. Before proceeding further, a look at the post mortem report of deceased (Ex.P-17) appears necessary. According to post mortem report, deceased Chodan Dorgi sustained following enter mortem injuries: "1. Chope wound measuring 2, 3/4 x 3/4cm x muscle deep on forehead on Rt. side, just near median line. See diagram for chap, margins are clean cut. 2. Chope Wound measuring 7 x 1, 1/4cm x muscle deep, one cm (away from (1)) apart and on median line, margins clean cut. 3. Abrasion 1, 112cm linear on upper eye lid of Lt. eye to outer continuos. 4. Abrasion l x 1/4cm on left maxillary region. 5. Linear abrasion 4, 3/4cm linear on left side of face, tailing downwards and outwards. 6. Abrasion 1/10cm just over & away (3/4cm) from Lt. angle of mouth. 7. Abrasion 314 cm, linear, 2cm apart and below to Lt. angle of mouth. 8. Bruise 1, 3/4 x 1/2cm on Rt. cheek. 9. Stab wound 2x1, 1/2cm x depth, shaped on middle of Lt. mid clavical region. See exploration, covered-thic blood. 10. 6. Abrasion 1/10cm just over & away (3/4cm) from Lt. angle of mouth. 7. Abrasion 314 cm, linear, 2cm apart and below to Lt. angle of mouth. 8. Bruise 1, 3/4 x 1/2cm on Rt. cheek. 9. Stab wound 2x1, 1/2cm x depth, shaped on middle of Lt. mid clavical region. See exploration, covered-thic blood. 10. Stab wound 1, 1/2 x 3/4cm x muscle deep, covered thick blood. 11. Stab wound 1 x 1/2cm x muscle deep below, outer ⅓ of Lt. clavical covered - thick blood. 12. Stab wound 1, 1/4 x ⅓cm on outer part of Lt. Arm, upper ⅓. 13. Chope wound 4 x 1, 1/4cm on parmer aspect of distal ⅓ of Lt. Index finger. 14. Stab wound 2, 1/2 x 1, 1/2cm x depth on outer part of Lt. side of chest in mid axillary line, covered thick blood, obliquely placed in VII ies. 15. Stab wound 4x2cm x depth on outer part of Lt. side of chest in post axillary fold, covered thick blood, placed obliquely in VIII ies. 16. Stab wound 1, 1/2 x I cm on front of Lt. thigh on upper ⅓, covered thick blood and muscle deep. 17. Incised wound 6 x 2, 1/2cm x muscle deep on Lt. thigh in middle, placed obliquely and covered tick blood. 18. Abrasion 1, 1/2 x 1/4 cm, just below left knee, irregular. 19. Abrasion 4 x 3/4cm on upper ⅓ of Lt. chin. irregular. 20. Abrasion 2, 1/2 x 1cm on middle of Lt. chin. irregular." The cause of her death was syncope as a result of injuries mentioned in PMR. 7. Vide injury report (Ex.P16) Karma Nidup sustained following injuries:- "1. multiple linear abrasions on face, back, both shoulder, Lt. Arm, Lt. Elbow and Lt. FA as shown in diagrams A, B and C. Abrasions are 1/4cm to 10cm long on various on various parts of body. Similar abrasions on dorsum of Rt. hand. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/10cm on thyroid cartilage over medial end of Rt.clv. (1, 1/4cm). Two abrasions (3cm, each) manubrium. Abrasion 3/4cm on front of Rt. thigh. distal ⅓ on Lt. thigh, 8, 1/2cm on front and distal ⅓. Linear abrasions on Rt. mastoid region (3 Abrasions- 1, 1/2cm, 2cm and 3cm, irregular) on Rt. frontal region in hair (2, 1/4cm) and on Rt.parietal region (1, 3/4cm) placed obliquely. Abrasions on dorsum of Lt. Two abrasions (3cm, each) manubrium. Abrasion 3/4cm on front of Rt. thigh. distal ⅓ on Lt. thigh, 8, 1/2cm on front and distal ⅓. Linear abrasions on Rt. mastoid region (3 Abrasions- 1, 1/2cm, 2cm and 3cm, irregular) on Rt. frontal region in hair (2, 1/4cm) and on Rt.parietal region (1, 3/4cm) placed obliquely. Abrasions on dorsum of Lt. middle finger & Index finger (3, 1/2 x 1cm and 1, 1/2 x 3/4cm) recently clotted blood film on all abrasions. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4cm, skin deep on back of prox. phalanx of Rt. Index finger, covered thick blood." 8. Dr. B.L. Bhatia (PW.9) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chodan and examined the injuries sustained by Karma Nidup. 9. Ramji Lal (PW.7) and Babu Lal (PW.15) although were not called to iaentify the appellant in the Identification Parade but they identified the appellant in the court. Both these witnesses categorically deposed that the to appellant, Hari Narayan and Chiranji Lal made assault on them on September 1e, 1993 around 7.15 PM while they were going from Kacchi Basti Malviya Nagar to Baiji ki Aali. They got Ramjilal and Babu Lal undressed and snatched Rs. 470/- and bottle of liquor from Babu Lal. These witnesses were cross examined at length but their testimony could not be shattered. Kunj Behari Pareek (PW.2) and Dr. Vasudev (PW.14) are the motbirs of recovery memo (Ex.P-7) of handkerchief and ID card recovered at the instance of appellant. These witnesses established the recovery of ID card of Karma Nidup at the instance of the appellant. 10. In so far the submission of learned counsel regarding admissibility of memo of identification is concerned, reference may be made to Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed and others v. State of A.P., (2002) 7 SCC 175 : 2002 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 445 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: "Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression aria also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eye witnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such identification. If, however, circumstances are beyond their control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution." 11. In Dana Yadav alias Danu and others v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295 : 2002 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 664 it was held as under:- "Identification parades are held during the course of investigation ordinarily at the instance of investigating agencies and should be held with reasonable dispatch for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify either the properties which are the subject matter of alleged offence or the accused persons involved in the offence so as to provide it with material to assure itself if the investigation of proceeding on right lines and the persons whom if suspects to have committed the offence were the real culprits." 12. In Jayawant Dattatraya and another v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 109 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus: "Substantive evidence of a witness is the evidence in court. In Jayawant Dattatraya and another v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 109 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus: "Substantive evidence of a witness is the evidence in court. Identification parade is not primarily meant for the court but is meant to investigation purposes. It serves two purposes, namely, to enable the witness to satisfy that the prisoner whom he suspects is really the one who was seen by him in connection with the commission of the crime and for satisfying the investigating authority that the suspect is the real person whom the witness had seen in connection with the said occurrence. In case when the evidence is cogent, consistent and without any motive, it is no use to theoretically imaging that as the witness has seen the accused for a few minutes it would be difficult for him to identify. This always depends upon one's capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier. Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon the situation. Finally appreciation of such evidence would depend upon the strength and trustworthiness of witnesses." 13. Principles emerged from the afore-quoted pronouncements may be summarised thus: (i) Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. It can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. (ii) The main object of holding an identification parade during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eye witnesses of the crime. (iii) In order to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade and it is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. (iv) Appreciation of such evidence would depend upon the strength and trustworthiness of witnesses. 14. Coming to the facts of the instant case we find that Ramji Lal (PW.7) and Babu Lal (PW.15) correctly identified the appellant in the trial court and if the appellant was not identified in the Identification Parade by Karma Nidup the testimony of Ramji Lai and Babu Lal cannot be rejected on this count. We find elements of truth in the testimony of Ramji Lal and Babu Lal. 15. We find elements of truth in the testimony of Ramji Lal and Babu Lal. 15. Although Karma Nidup, the eye witnesses of the occurrence could as not be examined as he left this country for Bhutan but following circumstances established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt:- (i) Ramji Lal and Babu Lal identified the appellant in the court and testified against the appellant. (ii) Immediately after the incident the appellant left, Jaipur for Bihar and could be arrested only after about 20 days from Bihar. (iii) ID card of Karma Nidup got recovered at the instance of appellant. 16. We find no substance in this submission of learned counsel for appellant that Ram Lal and Babu Lal are got up witnesses and they were introduced by police only to falsely implicate the appellant in the case. We are of the firm view that the guilt under sections 302/34 and 394 IPC is established against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted and sentenced. 17. In view of what we have discussed herein above, we find no merit in the instant appeals, the same stand dismissed and conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******