( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same judgment involving common question of law and facts, hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of through the common judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants in Criminal Appeal no. 1269 are the 1st and 7th accused while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 1999 is the 4th accused in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996 on the file of the Il-Additional Sessions judge at Karimnagar (hereafter they will be referred as they are referred in the trial Court) ( 3 ) THEY were found guilty by the learned additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to surfer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. ( 4 ) THEY are challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment. ( 5 ) FACTS the factual position in nutshell is as under:- (i) In a dacoity occurred on 11 -8-1995 the dacoits beat P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and another by name Varalaxmi with sticks, snatched away the gold ornaments and cash. (ii) P. W. 1 one of the victims of the incident lodged a report with the police and it was registered as Crime no. 58/95. (iii) The injured were treated in the government hospital. (iv) During investigation, seven persons were arrested on 17-9-1995 and in pursuance of their confession, m. Os. 1 and 2 the gold ornaments are discovered and recovered. (v) The accused before the trial Court are among those offenders. (vi) After their arrest P. W. 11,the Judicial first Class Magistrate conducted identification parade on 30-9-1995 at Central Prison Warangal. (vii) The victims have identified the accused. Thereafter, the test identification parade of property was also conducted. (viii) Finally the accused were charged. (ix) Total 11 witnesses were examined for the prosecution, 16 documents and 2 material objects are marked. (x) There is no evidence on behalf of the defence. (xi) The trial Court by reason of the impugned judgment convicted the appellants. ( 6 ) ARGUMENTS (i) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The colleague of the learned public Prosecutor represented the respondents. Neither the learned Public prosecutor nor Additional Public Prosecutor appeared to argue the case. (x) There is no evidence on behalf of the defence. (xi) The trial Court by reason of the impugned judgment convicted the appellants. ( 6 ) ARGUMENTS (i) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The colleague of the learned public Prosecutor represented the respondents. Neither the learned Public prosecutor nor Additional Public Prosecutor appeared to argue the case. (ii) The learned counsel for the accused contended that the trial Court has acquitted a-5 and A-6 and convicted only A-1, A-4 and a-7, hence the conviction of three persons for an offence under section 395 IPC is bad in law, and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. At the out set I would like to discuss this point as it is meritless. Section 391 IPC defines dacoity and the plain reading of the Section says that when five or more persons conjointly commit robbery they are said to have committed dacoity. Section 395 IPC deals with the punishment for the offence of dacoity. In the instant case, the specific case of the prosecution is that seven persons have participated in the commission of offence and committed robbery. In fact, 5 persons including the appellants were on trial before the Court below. They are A-1 A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7. Apart from them, there are two more accused involved in the offence and the case against A-2 is abated, and against A-3 the split up case is pending. Out of them the three appellants are convicted. Hence, the conviction and sentence is legal and the argument of the learned counsel has no force. ( 7 ) POINT whether the offence of dacoity Is proved against the appellants?7:01 P. W. 1 is the first informant to the police. She is one of victims and P. W. 1 has deposed that when she along with P. W. 2 and p. W. 4 the other two victims reached kondapurand Rangapur village bridge, seven persons stopped their TVS Suzuki the motor cycle and beat them with sticks. Her husband p. W. 4 and her sister-P. W. 2 sustained injuries and the offenders snatched the gold pusthelathadu and ear studs from her person. P. W. 1 also testified that she has seen the accused and she has given the identification particulars of the accused in her evidence. 7:02 Ex. P-1 is the 1st report lodged by her and she has narrated how the incident occurred. P. W. 1 also testified that she has seen the accused and she has given the identification particulars of the accused in her evidence. 7:02 Ex. P-1 is the 1st report lodged by her and she has narrated how the incident occurred. She has given identification particulars like the ages and the language spoken by assailants are stated. She has also mentioned that she can identify the culprits if shown to her. 7:03 Subsequently, P. W. 1 identified A-1 and A-4 in the test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate. Thereafter during the trial she has identified the accused and she was subjected to detailed crossexamination. It was elicited that the culprits did not cover their faces at the time of the offence. It is a positive answer to strengthen her case. The basis for identification was also elicited in the cross-examination. She has given cogent and convincing replies by deposing that the first accused is stout person. The suggestion that the accused were shown to her when they are in police lock up was denied by her. She also denied the other suggestion that the photographs of the accused were supplied to her before test identification parade. 7:04 P. W. 2 is another victim. She has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars and deposed that she had sustained head injury and the culprits robbed P. W. 1, She had identified A-1 and a-4 both in the parade as well as In the Court. She had denied the suggestion that she has seen the accused when they are in policy lock up. 7:05 P. W. 4 is other victim and he is the husband of P. W. 1. He had corroborated the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in respect of the commission of offence and identified A-1 a-3, A-4 and A-7 in the test identification parade as well as in the Court. 7:06 Thus P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 the three eye witnesses who are victims have clearly identified the appellants without any confusion and their evidence is worthy of credence and it is absurd to condemn them as untrustworthy. 7:07 The evidence of P. W. 11 further establishes that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 identified the accused in test identification parade. He is Judicial First Class Magistrate. He conducted the test identification parade in warangal Central Prison on 30-9-1995. 7:07 The evidence of P. W. 11 further establishes that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 identified the accused in test identification parade. He is Judicial First Class Magistrate. He conducted the test identification parade in warangal Central Prison on 30-9-1995. He has followed all the procedural requirements at the time of conducting identification parade. There are no illegalities or irregularities canvassed before me about the procedure adopted at the identification parade. Total thirty persons including suspects and non suspects participated in the parade. P. W. 11 testified that he has prepared the proceeding and the same is disclosing that P. W. 1 went round the line of all the thirty persons and identified A-1, A-2 and A-4 and she was unable to identify the others. Thereafter p. W. 11 asked the accused to change their positions, but they stood as before, then the second witness was called inside and she identified A-1, A-2 and A-4. Similarly, P. W. 4 identified A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-7. 7:08 Thus, the appellants were correctly identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 in the test identification parade conducted by a Judicial magistrate, and also in the Court during trial. There is no reason for me to reject the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,4 and 11. The evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,4 and 11 Is establishing that the appellants have participated in the dacoity and they have committed the dacoit. 7:09 The learned counsel for the appellants placed the following decision and argued that appellants are entitled for acquittal. Shabad Pulla Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh: 1997 (5) ALT 5 (DN SC) = 1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 580 (SC) wherein the Hon ble Supreme