M.L. VISA, J.:-Since all the three appeals arise out of same judgment dated 18.7.2001 and order dated 25.7.2001 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 192/99 (Tr. No. 8/99) convicting and sentencing Seraj Mian (appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 438/2001), Manoj Paswan (appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 445/2001) and Bishes Paswan (appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 497/2001) to undergo life imprisonment under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and R.I. for 10 years each under Section 412 IPC but ordering both the sentences to run concurrently, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 9.11.97 at about 9 PM Fardbeyan of informant Kishore Kumar Sharma (PW1) was recorded by SI H.P. Singh (not examined) at Sadar Hospital Munger where informant stated that on the same day he along with his elder brother Braj Kishore Sharma (deceased), 'Bhabhi' Kumkum Sharma (PW 9) and two nieces Sneha Sharma (PW-8) and Dipali aged about 4 years (not examined) left their house for going to Bariarpur and came to Tarapur by Auto-rickshaw and from there to Sultanganj by bus. Since there was no bus service for going to Bariarpur from Sultanganj, they all waited at Sultangary for train and when Jamalpur Sultanganj Shramik Train reached at 6 PM they all boarded the train which left Sultanganj Station at about 6.30 P.M. The train in the way stopped at Masdi, Kamarganj and Gangania and when left Gangania Station at about 7 PM, four miscreants hurriedly boarded the compartment in which informant was travelling and started looting the articles of passengers. They all were carrying country made pistols and torches. Snatching the articles of passengers all the miscreants came to informant and his family members. Informant handed over his wrist watch and cash to the miscreants and when the miscreants went near the brother of informant who stood up and flashed torch light on their faces and did not want to handover his suitcase but miscreants took possession of the suitcase and they fired on the chest of brother of informant who after receiving fire arm injuries fell down near the window. By that time, the train had already proceede about 200 yards from Gangania Railway Station and miscreants fled away by jumping from the running train. By that time, the train had already proceede about 200 yards from Gangania Railway Station and miscreants fled away by jumping from the running train. The miscreants were also flashing their torch lights. The miscreants rook away two VIP suitcases containing wearing, clothes of informant and his brother and 'Bhabhi', a golden ring of his 'Bhabhi' etc. and they also snatched wrist watches of informant, his brother and his 'Bhabhi all worth about Rs. 7000/-. The informant along with his injured brother came to Bariarpur, Station from where he informed his relations and took his brother to a doctor who after giving first aid to his brother advised the informant to take his brother to Sadar Hospital, Munger. When informant along with his relations took his brother to Sadar Hospital Munger, doctor after exaiming declared him dead. The informant further stated that his deceased brother was posted as Major in 99 APO, Misamari, Assam, 168 Field Regiment. Informant also claimed to identify the miscreants on seeing them again. On the basis of Fardbeyan a case under sections 394/302 IPC was registered and police took up investigation. During the investigation some articles are said to have been recovered from the possession of appellants which were identified in T.I. Parade as the articles looted in commission of offence. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet under sections 396 and 412 IPC against the appellants. Cognizance of the case was taken and case was committed to the court of session where charges under sections 396/412 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and were put on trial. After trial appellants were held guilty under sections 396 and 412 and were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 396 IPC and R.I. for 10 years each under section 412 IPC as indicated above. 3. The case of defence as it appears from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses is complete denial of their participation in the offence and their false implication. Six witnesses on behalf of appellants have been examined. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Kishore Kumar Sharma (PW-1) is the informant. Suresh Mandal (PW-2) and Vijay Yadav (PW-10) are said to be passengers travelling in the same train at the time of occurrence. Six witnesses on behalf of appellants have been examined. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Kishore Kumar Sharma (PW-1) is the informant. Suresh Mandal (PW-2) and Vijay Yadav (PW-10) are said to be passengers travelling in the same train at the time of occurrence. Ganga Mandal (PW-3) and Sunil Kumar Modi (PW-4) are said to be witnesses in whose presence some looted articles were recovered from the house of appellant Seraj Mian. They both have denied recovery of any article in their presence and have been declared hostile. However, Ganga Mandal (PW-3) has proved his signature on Seizure list (Ext.3) but has said that he put his signature under the pressure of police. Surendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5) is the Judicial Magistrate who on 26.11.97 had conducted T.I. Parade of appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswci I. Nagendra Kumar (PW-6) who was posted as Railway Judicial Magistrate had held T.I. Parade of some articles recovered during investigation. Dr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha (PW-7) is the doctor who held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Braj Kishore Sharma. Sneha (PW-8) and Kumkum Sharma (PW-9) are daughter and wife of deceased and are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Ashok Kumar (PW-11) is the I.O. in this case. Bishwanath Choudhary (PW-12) and Sadhu Singh (PW-13) are said to be witnesses in whose presence, on search of appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan some looted articles were recovered from their possession. 5. Dr. Prabhat Kumar Singh (PW-7), in his evidence, has said that on 10.11.97 he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Munger and on that day he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Major Braj Kishore Sharma and found the following ante mortem injuries: (i) One lacerated circular wound 1/2” diameter x chest cavity with inverted margin and charring arount the wound present on left back of chest in the 7th inter-coastal surface 1" lateral from vertebral column. This wound has been described as wound of entry. (ii) One lacerated wound 3/4"x1/2" x chest cavity deep on left chest just below the clavical and 1/2" away from mid clavicular line with everted margin. This wound has been described as wound of exit. This wound has been described as wound of entry. (ii) One lacerated wound 3/4"x1/2" x chest cavity deep on left chest just below the clavical and 1/2" away from mid clavicular line with everted margin. This wound has been described as wound of exit. He has further said that on dissection, he found that left chest cavity was filled with blood and blood clots, left lung lacerated and pierced through and through and both wounds were communicating with each other and in his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as the result of aforesaid injuries caused by fire arms and time elapsed since death was about 12 hours. He has proved his post mortem examination report which is marked Ext.6 From his evidence it is established that death of deceased was homicidal. 6. Kishore Kumar Sharma (PW-1), informant, in his evidence supporting the case of prosecution has stated that his elder brother deceased Braj Kishore Sharma was posted as Major in Army and had come on leave to his village on 4.11.97 and on 9.11.97 he along with his deceased brother Braj Kishore Sharma, Bhabhi and two nieces boarded a train at Sultanganj Railway Station for going to Bariyarpur and when at about 7.00 PM the train reached Gangania Railway Station and after its halt there had started some miscreants armed with country made pistols and torches entered the compartment in which he was travelling and started looting the passengers and they came to him also and started snatching articles and snatched his wrist watch. The miscreants went to his brother who flashed torch and raised protest in snatching of the suitcase but miscreants after snatching suitcase fired on him hitting on his chest and his brother fell down and thereafter miscreants fled away by jumping from the running train. He has further said that he left the train at Bariyarpur and went to doctor who after giving first aid to his brother referred him to Munger and when he took his brother to Sadar Hospital, Munger the doctor declared his brother dead. According to him, his Fardbeyan was recorded at Sadar Hospital, Munger. In para-9 of his evidence he has said that on 11.11.97 he submitted a list of articles (Ext.2) which were looted in dacoity and on 27.11.97 in T.I. parade of articles he identified the looted articles. According to him, his Fardbeyan was recorded at Sadar Hospital, Munger. In para-9 of his evidence he has said that on 11.11.97 he submitted a list of articles (Ext.2) which were looted in dacoity and on 27.11.97 in T.I. parade of articles he identified the looted articles. He has fruther said that in T.I. parade of miscreants he had identified appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan. On the day of evidence appellant Seraj Mian was also present in court and on seeing him he said that he was not identifying him. 7. Sneha (PW-8) and Kumkum Sharma (PW-9) are niece and 'Bhabhi' respectively of informant and they have also supported the case of prosecution by deposing that at the time of occurrence they boarded the train at Sultanganj for going to Bariarpur and when train left Gangania Railway Station some miscreants boarded the compartment in which they were travelling and started looting the passengers and they looted their articles also and fired on deceased. Both these witnesses have identified all the three appellants who, according to them, were among miscreants who took part in the commission of offence. They have also identified the articles which were recovered during the investigation. 8. Suresh Mandal (PW-2) and Vijay Yadav (PW-10) are independent witnesses and at the time of occurrence were travelling in the same compartment in which informant and his family members were travelling. Suresh Mandal (PW-2) has said that he had boarded the train at Sultanganj for going to Bariarpur and when the train in the way left Gangania Railway Station, 10-12 miscreants boarded the compartment in which he was travelling and started looting the passengers. He has further said that a woman, two men arid two minor girls were sitting besides him and miscreants started looting them also and snatched their suitcase and golden ring and miscreants fired on the husband of the woman hitting on his chest. He has further said that miscreants snatched his blanket also and thereafter miscreants fled away. He has added that he identified appellants Bishesh Paswan and Manoj Paswan in T.I. parade. Similarly, Vijay Yadav (PW-10) has said that on the day of occurrence he had come to Sultanganj for selling milk and thereafter. He has further said that miscreants snatched his blanket also and thereafter miscreants fled away. He has added that he identified appellants Bishesh Paswan and Manoj Paswan in T.I. parade. Similarly, Vijay Yadav (PW-10) has said that on the day of occurrence he had come to Sultanganj for selling milk and thereafter. he was returning to his village by train which started at 6 PM and when the train in the way reached Gangania Railway Station and after halt proceeded further, some miscreants started looting passengers and he heard the sound of firing and thereafter there was stampede and he also left the train and fled away. He has said that he handed over a sum of Rs. 90/- to miscreants which was taken by them. 9. Surendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5), a Judicial Magistrate, in his evidence has said that on 26.11.97 he was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Bhagalpur and on that day he held T.I. parade in which appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were identified by informant and Suresh Mandal (PW-2). He has proved his T.I. chart (Ext.4) 10. Bishwanath Choudhary (PW-12) has said that in his presence police made search of appellant Manoj Paswan and had recovered a Jeans full-pant from his possession and prepared a seizure list on which he put his signature (Ext. 3/J) and another witness Ravindra Kant Das also put his signature (Ext. 3/K). Sadhu Singh (PW-13) has said that on 17.11.97 police on search of appellant Bishesh Paswan at Bhagalpur Bus Stand recovered a HMT wrist watch from his possession and prepared a seizure list on which he and another witness Munna Yadav put their signatures (Ext. 3/L and 3/M). 11. Ashok Kumar (PW-11) is the I.O. of this case. He, in his evidence, has said that on 10.11.97 he was posted as Officer-in-charge of Rail Police Station, Bhagalpur and on that day he had received Fardbeyan of informant recorded by SI H.P. Singh through S.D. Pandey, the then Officer-in-charge of Jamalpur Railway Station. He has proved Fardbeyan (Ext.7) and endorsement of S.D. Pandey on it (Ext.8). He has further said that he drew formal FIR (Ext.9) and took up investigation of the case. He has proved Fardbeyan (Ext.7) and endorsement of S.D. Pandey on it (Ext.8). He has further said that he drew formal FIR (Ext.9) and took up investigation of the case. His evidence shows that on 9.11.97 he received a telephonic message from H.P. Singh that a train dacoity had taken place in which one passenger died in Munger Hospital and he entered this information in Station Diary as Entry No. 218 dated 9.11.97 and proceeded for Gangania where he received Fardbeyan of informant. In para-6 of his evidence, he has said that he went to Munger Hospital where he again recorded the statement of informant and saw the dead body of deceased and obtained the inquest report which had already been prepared by Munger Kotwali P.S. He has proved carbon copy of inquest report, marked Ext. 10. He has added that during the course of investigation he came to know that in the commission of offence appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan with one Congress Paswan had their hands. He further came to know that on their arrest looted articles can be recovered and on information that appellant Bishesh Paswan had just gone to Bhagalpur Bus Stand with looted wrist watch with him he went to Bhagalpur bus stand where he arrested appellant Bishesh Paswan with a lady wrist watch which he had put on his wrist and appellant Bishesh Paswan confessed his guilt. According to him, appellant Bishesh Paswan produced the wrist watch admitting that the watch was looted by him during the dacoity, which is marked Ext. 11. He has also proved seizure list (Ext.111 A) when he recovered some looted articles from the house of Sub hash Paswan because appellant Bishesh Paswan in his confessional statement had admitted that Subhash Paswan was also amongst the dacoits who took part in looting the articles. In para-17 of his evidence he has said that he searched the house of appellant Seraj Mian and recovered an old black jeans full-pant with sticker 'Epic' on it and red coloured two-piece garments of minor girl and an old red coloured bag with 'Tosiba' printed on it containing articles for shaving and prepared seizure list (Ext.11/B). In para-17 of his evidence he has said that he searched the house of appellant Seraj Mian and recovered an old black jeans full-pant with sticker 'Epic' on it and red coloured two-piece garments of minor girl and an old red coloured bag with 'Tosiba' printed on it containing articles for shaving and prepared seizure list (Ext.11/B). His evidence shows that appellant Bishesh Paswan in his confessional statement disclosed that some articles had been kept in a well and in para-18 of his evidence he has said that he went to Murla Bahiyar and from a well near a Pee pal Tree there he recovered one brown coloured Aristo suit case containing bed sheets, some books etc and another grey coloured suitcase printed with the word 'Sagar' with military coloured cover containing some wearing clothes and prepared seizure list Ext. (11/C). He has further said that he arrested Manoj Paswan who also confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confessional statement he seized blue coloured full-pant which at the time of seizure Manoj Paswan was wearing and which he after taking out from his body produced before him and he prepared seizure list (Ext. 11/D). According to him In T.I. parape of miscreants, Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were identified by informant and Suresh Mandal (PW-2) and in T.I. parade of articles informant identified articles which included one wrist watch, one old bed sheet, yellow Sari, old petticoat, old wollen sweater, three pairs of old Chapp ai, small white wollen sweater, underwear, landkerchief, white trousers etc. he has said that after completing investigation he submitted chargesheet under sections 396/397/412 IPC. 12. Nagendra Kumar (PW-6), a Railway Judicial Magistrate, in his evidence, has said that on 27.11.97 he conductd T.I. parade of articles seized in this case. He has said that informant identified some articles and he has proved T.I. chart prepared and signed by him (Ext.5) 13. From the material on record I find that so far appellant Seraj Mian is concerned he was not put on T.I. parade but he has been identified in court by PW.2, 8 and 9. 14. Mr. He has said that informant identified some articles and he has proved T.I. chart prepared and signed by him (Ext.5) 13. From the material on record I find that so far appellant Seraj Mian is concerned he was not put on T.I. parade but he has been identified in court by PW.2, 8 and 9. 14. Mr. N.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Seraj Mian has submitted that identificfation of appellant Seraj Mian by P.W.S. 2, 8 and 9 for the first time in court has got no legal value because this appellant was never put on T.I. parade before. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanan and others VS. State of Kerala ( AIR 1979 SC 1127 ) where it has been held as follows: "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has a been previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under S.9 of the Evidence Act is to test veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding identification of an accused for the first time in court. In these circumstances, therefore, we feel that it was incumbent on the prosecution in the case to have arranged T.I. parade and get the identification made before the witness was called upon to identify the appellant in court. On this ground alone, the testimony of PW-25 become unworthy of credence and must be excluded from consideration." 15. This principle was again confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Adm.) Vs. B.C. Shukla and others and other analogous appeals ( AIR 1980 SC 1382 ) where also it was held that "moreover identification of Tripathy by the witness for the first time in court without being tested by a prior test identification parade was valueless." Mr. Khan has also relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1983 SC 367 , 1985 Cr. L.J. 191 (Bombay High Court) & 1992 Cr. L.J. 3445 (SC). 16. Mr. Khan has also relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1983 SC 367 , 1985 Cr. L.J. 191 (Bombay High Court) & 1992 Cr. L.J. 3445 (SC). 16. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State assisted by Mr. Ram Sewak Choudhary, learned counsel of informant has argued that for relying upon the identification of an accused by prosecution witnesses for the first time in court it is not necessarily required that accused must have been put on T.I. parade earlier. According to him the probative value of identification of an accused for the first time in court by prosecution witnesses depends on the facts of that particular case and there may be cases when such type of evidence can be relied upon without any T.I. parade. In support of his argument he has relied upon decision in the case of Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 1998 (2) SC 375. Here I would like to quote the following observations made in the judgment of the aforesaid case which are relevant to the present case: "19. Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. It says, inter alia, facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, insofar as they are necessary for the purpose, are relnvant. So the evidence of identification is a relevant piece of evidence under section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consists of identification of the accused person at his trali. The statement of the witness made in the Court, afortiori identification by him of an accused is substantive evidence but from its very nature it is inherently of a weak character. The evidence of identification in the TIP is not a substantive evidence but is only corroborative evidence. It falls in the realm of investigation. The substantive evidence is the statement of the witness made in the court. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time after a long time, the probative value of such uncorroboated evidence becomes minimal, so much that it becomes unsafe to rely on such piece of evidence. But if a witness has known an accused earlier in such circumstances which lend assurance to identification by him in court .and if there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, there is no reason why his statement in court about the identification of accused should not be relied upon as any other acceptable but uncorroborated testimony." 17. In the above case relied upon by Mr. Prasad, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of the High Court which had rejected the evidence of PWs 42 and 45 on the ground that they had no opportunity to see closely the appellants but upheld the finding of the trial court as well as of High court which had relied upon the identification by PWs 29 and 34 of appellants in court without any test identification on the ground that appellant No.1 was introduced to them by deceased and thereafter appellant Nos.2 and 3 were introduced to them by appellant No.1 and they all talked for about 7-8 minutes. The facts of the present case are not similar to the facts of the case which has been relied upon by Mr. Prasad. It is not the case of prosecution that PWs.2, 8 and 9 had any opportunity to see the dacoits for a considerable time or they had any talk with them. The dacoits only for a shortwhile were seen by them when they snatched articles from them and one of them fired on deceased. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 9.11.97 whereas PW-2 was examined on 28.3.2000, PW-8 on 10.5.2000 and PW-9 on 25.8.2000. The dacoits only for a shortwhile were seen by them when they snatched articles from them and one of them fired on deceased. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 9.11.97 whereas PW-2 was examined on 28.3.2000, PW-8 on 10.5.2000 and PW-9 on 25.8.2000. Besides this, time of occurrence was 7.30 PM and admittedly occurrence took place in the compartement of a running train and PWs 2 and 9 have said that dacoits were flashing torches and PW-9 has said that there was darkness in the compartment at the time of dacoity. Mr. Prasad has also relied upon the decision in the case of George and others. Vs. State of Kerala and another, 1998 SCC (Cri) 1232 and has argued that if the court finds identification of an accused in court by prosecution witness trustoworthy it can rely upon it even the accused had not been put earlier on T.I. parade and absence of T.I. parade cannot be fatal to such type of evidence. In that case the Supreme Court after holding that" it cannot be denied however that though not fatal, absence of the corroborative evidence of prior identification in a T.I. parade makes the substantive evidence of identification in court after a long lapse of time a weak piece of evidence and no reliance can be placed upon it unless sufficiently and satisfactorily corroborated by other evidence" upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 because his involvement in the commission of offence was corroborated by the dying declaration made by the deceased before PWs 3 and 4 but so far other appellants were concerned they were given benefit of reasonable doubt considering the fact that their identification in court for the first time was not corroborated by any identification in T.I. parade earlier held nor by the dying declaration. 18. In the present case, the informant in his Fardbeyan has made claim that he can identify the dacoits on seeing them again but when he appeared as a witness in court he failed to identify the appellant Seraj Mian who was present in court on that day and informant on seeing him stated that he was not identifying him. 18. In the present case, the informant in his Fardbeyan has made claim that he can identify the dacoits on seeing them again but when he appeared as a witness in court he failed to identify the appellant Seraj Mian who was present in court on that day and informant on seeing him stated that he was not identifying him. Besides this, PW-2 who had identified Seraj Mian in court has stated that at the time of occurrence this appellant had snatched his blanket whereas when this witness appeared in T.I. parade in which appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were put he identified Manoj Paswan saying that he had snatched his blanket as stated by Surendra Kumar Pandey, a Judicial Magistrate, who held T.I. parade in para-5 of his evidence. Notwithstanding this contradiction I find that identification of Seraj Mian for the first time in court by PWs-2, 8 and 9 has remained uncorroborated and on the basis of this uncorroborated evidence which is valueless, the case of prosecution that Seraj Mian also participated in the dacoity can not be said to be proved. 19. The court below has found the appellant Seraj Mian guilty under section 412 IPC also and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 10 years. It is alleged that some articles looted in the dacoity such as, old black coloured full pant with sticker of the word "Epic" on it, one red coloured two pieces dress of a minor girl and old red coloured bag with the word "Tosiba" printed on it containing shaving kit, tooth brush, nail cutter etc. were recovered from the house of appellant Seraj Mian wher. PW.11 made search of his house in presence of PWs 3 and 4 and prepared seizue list (Ext. 11/B). Out of the articles said to have been recovered from the house of appellant Seraj Mian, black coloured full-pant with the sticker of the word 'Epic' and a bag printed with the word 'Tosia' are mentioned in the list of articles (Ext.2) which was subsequently submitted by informant at Bhagalpur Railway Police Station on 11.11.97 as deposed by informant in para-9 of his evidence. PW.8 has identified the red bag with shaving cream, saving brush., nail cutter etc. and these articles are marked Material Ext. II/I and from Material Exts. XVIII to XXIV. PW.8 has identified the red bag with shaving cream, saving brush., nail cutter etc. and these articles are marked Material Ext. II/I and from Material Exts. XVIII to XXIV. She also identified a Jeans fullpant saying that it belongs to her father or uncle and this pant is marked as Material Ext. X. The articles identified by this witness have been identified by PW-9 also who is the wife of deceased. The case of appellant Seraj Mian is that articles which are said to have been recovered from his house and subsequently identified by PWs 8 and 9 were in fact not recovered from his house because no search of his house was made by-I.O. 20. Md. Taiyab Ali (DW-1) is the father of appellant Seraj Mian and he in his evidence has said that date of birth of appellant Seraj Mian is 5.1.1984 and in the year 1987 Seraj Mian was student and on 9.11.1997 he was present in his house. He has further said that population of his village is of about 150 persons and there are houses of a number of persons and his house was never searched by the police. He has further said that altogether 15 members permanently reside in his house. The court below has not believed him considering his evidence in cross examination where he failed to give the date of birth of his daughters and sons but his evidence that in his house besides appellant Seraj Mian his other sons and daughters and he himself reside has not been challenged. Ashok Kumar (PW-11), I.O. in his evidence has admitted that seizure list of articles recoverd from the house of Seraj Mian was prepared at the house of this appellant but copy of seizure list was not handed over to any member of the family of appellant because neither the appellant nor his any other family member was present there and he has made it clear that at the time of search no body was present in the he use of appellant Seraj Mian. He has nowhere said that the house from where the articles were recovered exclusively belonged to appellant Seraj Mian and as discussed earlier the evidence of DW-1, father of appellant Seraj Mian that in his house 15 members reside. He has nowhere said that the house from where the articles were recovered exclusively belonged to appellant Seraj Mian and as discussed earlier the evidence of DW-1, father of appellant Seraj Mian that in his house 15 members reside. The case against appellant Seraj Mian of recovery of articles looted in the dacoity from his conscious possession becomes further weak by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 who are seizure list witnesses but as stated above, they have not supported recovery of any article in their presence from the house of appellant Seraj Mian. It is true that PW-3 who has been declared hositle by the prosecution has proved his signature Ext.3) on the seizure list but at the same time he has said that he put his signature on seizure list at the police station under the pressure of police. PW-4 has not been declared hostile by the prosecution in spite of the fact that he categorically stated that no search or recovery was made in his presence and he put his signature on the seizure list (Ext. 8 to 10) at the dictate of the police. The court below after considering the evidence of PWs-3 and 4 has observed that if they were forced by police to put their signatures on seizure list why they did not bring this fact to the notice of Senior Police Officer or Court and their evidence was recorded on 29.3.2000 when I.O. was still posted at the same police station but in spite of these facts they appeared to depose in court that they put their signatures on the seizure list under the pressure of police and had it really happened they would have given such type of statement earlier. On the basis of this reasoning court below gave a finding that PWs 3 and 4 have deliberately concealed the fact and they have falsely deposed that they put their signatures on the seizure list on the pressure of the police and they did it in order to help the appellants. This finding of the court below is beyond the evidence on record and is based on conjectures and surmises. I, therefore, find that case of prosecution about the recovery of some articles looted in dacoity from the house of appellant Seraj Mian does not stand proved beyond all reasonable doubts and it fails. 21. This finding of the court below is beyond the evidence on record and is based on conjectures and surmises. I, therefore, find that case of prosecution about the recovery of some articles looted in dacoity from the house of appellant Seraj Mian does not stand proved beyond all reasonable doubts and it fails. 21. So far case of other appellants namely, Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan is concerned, they were put on T.I. parade and were identified by PWs 1 and 2. PW5 posted as Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time has also stated that informant in the T.I. parade identified appellants Manoj Paswan by saying that at the time of occurrence he was carrying pistol and torch and appellant Bishesh Paswan snatched wrist watch from his 'Bhabhi' when he saw them and identified. PW-2 has said that he identified appellant Manoj Paswan who was armed with pistol and was present at the place of occurrence and had snatched his blanket and appellant Bishesh Paswan was present at the place of occurrence. These two appellants have been identified by PWs 1 and 2 in court also and besides this, they have been also identified in court by PWs 8 and 9. 22. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Bishesh Paswan has argued that I.O. in para-57 of his evidence has admitted that he arrested appellant Bishesh Paswan on 17.11.97 and after arrest he took him for conducting raid and brought him to police station on 18.11.97 and forwarded him to court on 19.11.97. It has further been argued that I.O. has admitted that he took appellant Bishesh Paswan to places in conducting raid although he has denied suggestion put to him on behalf of appellant Bishesh Paswan that this appellant was taken to Bariarpur where he was shown to informant. I have already stated in the preceding paragraph that after arrest Bishesh Paswan confessed his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by I.O. and on the basis of his confessional statement he was taken to Murla Bhiyar where from a well some articles looted in the dacoity were recovered. 23. Mr. I have already stated in the preceding paragraph that after arrest Bishesh Paswan confessed his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by I.O. and on the basis of his confessional statement he was taken to Murla Bhiyar where from a well some articles looted in the dacoity were recovered. 23. Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Manoj Paswan, has argued that in para 57 I.O. has deposed that he first arrested appellant Bishesh Paswan and thereafter appellant Manoj Paswan and deliberately he has not given the date of arrest of appellant Manoj Paswan. It is true that about Manoj Paswan I.O. has simply stated that he arrested him after the arrest of appellant Bishesh Paswan who was arrested on 17.11.97. In para 21 I.O. has said that he also arrested Manoj Paswan who confessed his guilt and at the time of arrest he was found wearing a blue coloured fullpant with sticker of 'Rough and Tough' which he took out from his body and produced before him and he prepared a production cum seizure list (Ext. 11/D). From the perusal of production cum seizure list (Ext.11/D) I find that it was prepared on 18.11.97 24. Mr. Uma Kant Prasad and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan, have argued that as per the own case of prosecution these appellants were arrested on 17.11.97 and 18.11.97 but the record shows that they both were forwarded to court on 24.11.97 when they were remanded to custody. Their argument is that after arrest both the appellants were kept in police 'Hazat' for a considerable long time and in between this period they were shown to informant and PW-2 who identified them in T.I. parade. Portan Paswan (DW-3) in his evidence has said that Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were arrested on 15/16.11.97 and after arrest they were kept in village for 1/1/2 to 2 hours and thereafter they were taken to Kalyanpur Station where he and a number of other persons had gone and police took them in a train and he returned from the railway station. Khajanchi Paswan (DW-4) has said that he had seen appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan in the custody of police at Kalyanpur and also saw that they boarded a train along with police. Khajanchi Paswan (DW-4) has said that he had seen appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan in the custody of police at Kalyanpur and also saw that they boarded a train along with police. In his cross examination he has said that he had seen them on 15/16.11.97. Garib Paswan (DW5) is. father of appellant Manoj Paswan and he has said that both the appellants were arrested on the same day and were taken to Kalyanpur from where police took them to Bariyarpur by a train. In para-5 he has said that he does not know where both the appellants were taken by police. Garib Paswan (DW-6) is the father of appellant Bishesh Paswan and he has said that Bishesh Paswan and Manoj Paswan both were arrested by police and were taken to Kalyanpur and from there to Bariyarpur by a train. He has said that on next day at, Bhagalpur GRP Station he had seen some persons sitting there including informant and PW-2 but in para-5 of his cross examination he has said that he had seen informant for the first time in his life at G.R.P Station and at that time he had not identified him and when he saw him again in court he identified him. To a question about time lapsed since evidence of informant in this case he has said that he can not say whether this was two months or two years. Defence has not been able to prove that appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were shown to PW-2 before they were put on T.I. parade. On the point of delay in forwarding these two appellants to court, I find that it is true that I.O. has said that on 17.11.97 Bishesh Paswan was arrested and Ext. 11/D shows that appellant Manoj Paswan produced his fullpant on 18.11.97, It is also true that record shows that both of them were forwarded to court on 24.11.97. Mr. On the point of delay in forwarding these two appellants to court, I find that it is true that I.O. has said that on 17.11.97 Bishesh Paswan was arrested and Ext. 11/D shows that appellant Manoj Paswan produced his fullpant on 18.11.97, It is also true that record shows that both of them were forwarded to court on 24.11.97. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned A.P.P. has• submitted that an unfortunate incident of making a murderous attack on 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge Bhagalpur, staff and lawyers by several police officials took place on 18.11.97 at Bhagalpur and the entire working of the Civil Courts at Bhagalpur remained paralysed for some days and although immediately after arrest appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan were forwarded to court within the prescribed time but since working of Bhagalpur court was completely paralysed they could not be remanded to jail custody and police force which had taken them to court brought them back to police station where they were kept in custody and when the working of court normalised they were forwarded to court and were remanded. He further submitted that record shows that forwarding report by which both the appellants were forwarded to court is on record and its date is 19.11.97 and the fact that both the appellants who were forwarded to court on 19.11.97 could not be remanded to jail custody because of the reason that no Judicial Officer was available in the court and entire judicial work of Civil court, Bhagalpur was stopped on account on incident which had taken place in the Civil court compound on 18.11.97 is mentioned in para 169 of the case diary. Although from the evidence adduced by prosecution in this case I find that this fact has not been brought on record and atleast I.O. should have explained this position in his evidence but then it is a fact that an incident had taken place in civil court, Bhagalpur, on 18.11.97 when several police officials made a murderous attack on the judicial officer, his staff and lawyers and this Court had to initiate a contempt proceeding against the police officials and a writ application was also filed and both were heard together and erring police officials were punished by this Court. The matter is reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 650. When Division Bench of this Court has heard Original. Cr. Misc. The matter is reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 650. When Division Bench of this Court has heard Original. Cr. Misc. No.24/97 and CWJC No.10625/97 (Shri B.K. Pandey, 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, Bihar Young Lawyers Association Vs. A Natrajan and others and State of Bihar) I fully agree with the submission of Mr. Prasad, learned APP that this court can take judicial notice of this fact. 25. Apart from identification of appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan in T.I. parade by informant and PW-2 and their identification in court by informant, PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 I find that some looted articles recovered from their possession which were put on T.I. parade were identified by informant and during the trial also those articles were identified by PW-8 and PW-9. Ext. 11/D shows that a blue cloured Jeans pant with sticker with the words 'Rough and Tough' was produced by the appellant Manoj Paswan which he was found wearing and this article is mentioned in the list of articles looted (Ext.2) subsequently filed by the informant-and it was put on T.I. parade and was identified by informant (Ext.5) and during the trial also it was identified by PW-8 and PW-9 which is marked Ext. 10/1. The evidence of Nagendra Kumar (PW-6) the then Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted T.I. Parade supports this fact. Similarly, when appellant Bishesh Paswan was arrested he was found putting a lady watch on his wrist which he produced before I.O. and a production cum seizure list (Ext.11) was prepared. It is the evidence of I.O. that on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Bishesh Paswan a number of other articles were recovered at Murala Bahiyar, marked Ext. 11/C. From Ext. 11 and 11/C I find that a citizen lady watch said to be recovered from the possession of appellant Bishesh Paswan, suitcase with military coloured cover and some books which were recovered from a well on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Bishesh Paswan are in the list of looted articles (Ext. 2). The T.I. chart (Ext.5) shows that these articles were identified by Informant and during the trial these articles were identified by PWs 8 and 9 and these articles are marked Material Ext. 1 , 25, 26, 26/1, 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4. 26. Mr. 2). The T.I. chart (Ext.5) shows that these articles were identified by Informant and during the trial these articles were identified by PWs 8 and 9 and these articles are marked Material Ext. 1 , 25, 26, 26/1, 26/2, 26/3 and 26/4. 26. Mr. D.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bishesh Paswan, relying upon the decision reported in 1993 Suppl (2) SC 697 has argued that T.I. parade in this case has got no value. This decision is not applicable to fact of the present case because in that case suspects who were put on T.I. parade were fettered on their legs connected with an iron rod mixed up with other persons who were unfettered. He has further argued that evidence of PW-8 who on the day of his deposing in court gave her age as 9 years does not inspire confidence because her evidence was recorded on 10.5.2000 for the occurrence of 9.11.97 meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence she was hardly aged about 6 years and she is a child witness. The court which recorded her evidence assessed her age as 11 years and her deposition shows that before recording her evidence this witness was subjected to voir dire. In the decision reported in 1992 (Cri) L.J. 2192 it was simply held that it is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, weather sworn or unsworn, but this is of rule a prudence and not of law." In the present case PW-8 is not a solitary witness on the point of identification of appellants who have been identified by other prosecution witnesses also. 27. The next argument on behalf of appellants is that it is not a case of dacoity because the informant in his fardbeyan stated that only four persons took part in the commission of offence. On this point, I find that it is true that in Fardbeyan informant has stated that he saw four persons boarding hurriedly in the train and starting looting passengers but then in this evidence he has said that when train steamed off miscreants boarded the compartment in which he was travelling and four miscreants were armed with country made pistols and torches. It means that there were more than four persons otherwise this witness would not have said that out of miscreants four were armed with pistols and torches. Had there been only four persons he would have said that all of them were armed with pistols and torches. Besides this, PW-2 who was also travelling in the same compartment at the time of dacoity has said that about 10-12 miscreants boarded the train PW-8 In her evidence has said that when the train left Gangania Railway Station some miscreants boarded the train and out of them four miscreants came near to her and her family members. Similarly, PW-9 in her evidence has said that when train left Gangania Railway Station some miscreants started looting passengers and in that process miscreants came near her family members. From this evidence I find that more than four persons took part in the commission of offence and it is a case of dacoity. 28. Considering the entire evidence on record i find that so far case of appellant Seraj Mian is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove charges framed against him. Cr. Appeal No. 438 of 2001 filed by appellant Seraj Mian is therefore allowed. His conviction and sentence are hereby set aside and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 29. So far appellants Manoj Paswan and Bishesh Paswan are concerned they were found guilty under section 412. IPC also besides 396 IPC on the ground that some looted articles were recovered from their possession. As they have been found guilty under section 396 IPC I am of the opinion that their further conviction under section 412 IPC is not proper because they were found in possession of those articles which they had looted at the time of dacoity. Their conviction and sentence under section 412 IPC is set aside but so far their conviction and sentence under section 396 IPC is concerned. I find no infirmity in the order of the court below which is confirmed. In the result, Cr. Appeal No. 445 of 2001 filed by appellant Manoj Paswan and Cr. Appeal No. 497 of 2001 filed by appellant Bishesh Paswan are dismissed with the modification as indicated above. I agree.