JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14th July 2000 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1996/ 69 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The appellant was charged for committing the dacoity in Police Camp and in commission of such dacoity, committed the murder of Constable Tejpal Oraon on 21st January 1995 at police camp situated at Gaya Pool within Katras (Rajganj) Police Station in the District of Dhanbad. 3. In short the prosecution case is that for controlling the crime a Police Camp was established at Gaya Pool. On 21/01/1995 at about 5.15 p.m. when the informant Birendra Prasad Yadav was on sentry duty there, Constable Tejpal Oraon was present inside the camp. Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma had gone to answer the call of nature. Constable August Dubey had gone to police line to bring his substitute, as he was to proceed on leave. At that time suddenly 80-85 miscreants variously armed with firearms attacked on that police camp. 7-8 miscreants, who were passing through the road and were in villagers dress, suddenly reached the police camp and began to assault the informant with Danda and snatched his Riffle. 8-10 miscreants came running from the side of railway line and entered into the police camp and then, before the constable Tejpal Oraon, who was inside the camp could understand, they took possession of four Rifles, which were kept there. When constable Tejpal Oraon intervened and caught hold of his own Riffle then they assaulted him with Danda. Tejpal Oraon caught hold of one of the miscreants but the miscreants brutally assaulted Tejpal Oraon by means of butt of the Rifles and Danda. In the meantime there was a sound of whistle, then all the miscreants left the place of occurrence with the Rifles, Attachees, some leather bags and cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/- apart from the other articles. In the meantime Constable Jagay Bandra, Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma and A.S.I. Nawal Kishore Singh reached there and saw the miscreants fleeing away from there. The informant Birendra Prasad Yadav and Constable Tejpal Oraon were taken to the Central Hospital, Tilatand in a Trecker. 10,000/- apart from the other articles. In the meantime Constable Jagay Bandra, Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma and A.S.I. Nawal Kishore Singh reached there and saw the miscreants fleeing away from there. The informant Birendra Prasad Yadav and Constable Tejpal Oraon were taken to the Central Hospital, Tilatand in a Trecker. Since the condition of Tejpal Oraon became precarious, he was referred to Dhanbad Hospital where he subsequently succumbed to the injuries. 4. The defence of the appellant was of false implication and total denial of the occurrence and that the police got him identified by the witnesses before the T.I. parade. 5. In order to establish the charge, altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 Jagay Bandra and PW-4 Ram Naresh Sharma are the witnesses, who, according to the prosecution, reached the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and they saw the miscreants while they were fleeing away. PW-2 Suresh Prasad Singh and PW-3 Sarju Baitha are the Investigating Officers. PW-5 Dr. Binod Kumar is the witness, who conducted the Post Mortem examination of the deceased constable Tejpal Oraon. PW-6 is Birendra Prasad Yadav, i.e. the informant and PW-7 is Surendra Prasad Pandey, the Judicial Magistrate in whose presence the T.I. Parade of the accused was held. 6. On behalf of the defence also one witness namely, Yamuna Prasad Rai (DW-1) was examined on the point that the accused appellant was arrested on 27/07/1996 and he was brought to the Rajganj T.O.P. on 29/07/1996 and his photographs was published in the newspapers on the next day. 7. From the evidence of PW-6, i.e. the informant it appears that he has stated that on 21/01/1995, i.e. on the date of occurrence he was on duty at Gaya Pool. Constables Tejpal Oraon, Jagay Bandra, Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma and August Dubey were also on duty at that place. However, August Dubey had gone to police line to bring his substitutes, as he had to go on leave. At that time, i.e. about 5.15 p.m. Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma had gone to attend the call of the nature, whereas Jagay Bandra, had also gone to take drinking water. Constable Tejpal Oraon was sitting inside the camp. However, August Dubey had gone to police line to bring his substitutes, as he had to go on leave. At that time, i.e. about 5.15 p.m. Hawaldar Ram Naresh Sharma had gone to attend the call of the nature, whereas Jagay Bandra, had also gone to take drinking water. Constable Tejpal Oraon was sitting inside the camp. At that time 7-8 miscreants in villagers dress, who were going through that road, suddenly came there and caught hold of the informant and then assaulted him with Lathi and Danda and also snatched his Rifle from him. 8-10 miscreants entered into the camp and took possession of four Rifles, which were kept there. When Tajpal Oraon caught hold of his own Rifle, then the miscreants brutally assaulted him. Tejpal Oraon was also dragged outside. In the meantime there was a sound of whistle and then after hearing the sound of whistle, the accused persons fled away after taking five Riffles, five attachees, one leather bag and cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, Uniform, registers and command book etc. Jagay Bandra and Ram Naresh Sharma as well as ASI Nawal Kishore Singh reached there and they saw the miscreants fleeing away. He has further stated that he (the informant) and the injured constable Tejpal Oraon were brought to Tilatand Government Hospital on a Treckker but when the condition of Tejpal Oraon became precarious then he was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad. This informant was also referred to the Central Hospital, Dhanbad. Tejpal Oraon succumbed to the injuries in the Central Hospital. The informant further stated that the miscreants were armed with Rifles, country-made pistol and one of them was armed with AK-47 Rifle. 8. The statements of the informant have fully been corroborated by PW-1 Jagay Bandra and PW-4 Ram Naresh Sharma. 9. Both these PWs, i.e. PW-1 and PW-4 identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade, which was held in presence of PW-7 Surendra Prasad Pandey, Judicial Magistrate. 10. The statements of PWs. 1, 4 and 6 have further been corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officers, i.e. PW-2 Suresh Prasad Singh. He has stated that on 21/01/1995 he was posted as Officer Incharge of Katras Police Station. He recorded the Fardbeyan of Birendra Prasad Yadav in the Central Hospital. 10. The statements of PWs. 1, 4 and 6 have further been corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officers, i.e. PW-2 Suresh Prasad Singh. He has stated that on 21/01/1995 he was posted as Officer Incharge of Katras Police Station. He recorded the Fardbeyan of Birendra Prasad Yadav in the Central Hospital. It was further stated by him that a police camp was established in a Tent in the Eastern bank near Gaya Pool on Katras Rajganj Road. The Railway line passed at a distance of about 20-25 yards north to this camp. There were bushes and shrubs all around the place of occurrence and the railway line was at the height of about 30-35 feet from that place. He found all the articles of the camp scattered here and there. Bloodstains were also found near the place of occurrence. The appellant was put on T.I. Parade and was identified by PW-1 Jagay Bandra in the T.I. Parade. 11. PW-5 Dr. Binod Kumar, who conducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Tejpal Oraon found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Right side face, entire forehead and both eyes were bruised. (2) Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x full thickness horizontally placed at the middle of Pinna of right ear. (3) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4 x full thickness at the upper part of Pinna of right ear. (4) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x bone deep situated 1" in front of upper part of right ear. (5) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep and 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep 1/4" apart seen on the outer end of the right eyebrow. (6) Stitched wound 1/4" long on right cheek. (7) Stitched wound 1/2" long on the upper lip at right half seen to the right lower lateral incisor tooth was broken. (8) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the right side of head. (9) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the upper part front of right leg. (10) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2 x muscle deep on front middle of right leg. On dissection, right side of frontal bone under injury Nos. 4 and 5 were found to be broken. His right cheek was also broken. (9) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the upper part front of right leg. (10) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2 x muscle deep on front middle of right leg. On dissection, right side of frontal bone under injury Nos. 4 and 5 were found to be broken. His right cheek was also broken. Linear fracture was seen on the left parietal occipital, right temporal and right parieital bone. Meninges were congested to the subdural and sub arachnoid haemotoma seen over both bemisphere of brain. Brain was congested. Massive exhymosis seen under the scalp over parietal, frontal, right temporal and occipital region of head. Right side chamber of the heart were full with blood. Left side chamber were partially full with blood. Stomach contained about 100 grams of blackish pasty matter. Urinary bladder was empty. Internal organs were mildly congested. 12. According to the opinion of the doctor the death was in coma as a result of above-mentioned intra cranial hemorrhage caused by hard and blunt object. The incised wound was caused by (sic) edged weapon. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that incised wound may have been caused by bayonet of Riffle and the other injuries may have been caused by Lathi, Danda and Farsa. 13. Mr. Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the identification of the appellant in the T.I. Parade by PW-1 and PW-4 was of no value because the Test Identification Parade was held after about one year and eight months from the date of occurrence, i.e. on 27/09/1996 whereas the occurrence took place 21/01/1995. In support of his submission Mr. Bajaj has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girja Shankar Misra v. State of U.P. . 14. It was further submitted that according to the prosecution itself PWs-1 and 4 had seen the accused while he was fleeing away, which was not possible since they could have seen the miscreants from behind and, therefore, their identification is doubtful and on such identification the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial court. 15. So far the holding of the T.I. Parade on 27/09/1996 is concerned, it appears from the record that the appellant was remanded to custody in connection with this case on 12/08/1996. 15. So far the holding of the T.I. Parade on 27/09/1996 is concerned, it appears from the record that the appellant was remanded to custody in connection with this case on 12/08/1996. As noticed above the T.I. Parade was held on 27/09/1996 and, therefore, it is apparent that after the remand of the appellant on 12/08/1996, the T.I. Parade was held within one month of his remand. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay in holding the T.I. Parade of the appellant. 16. In the case before the Supreme Court in the case of Girja Shankar Misra (supra) it appears that in that case the accused surrendered on 19/02/73 and on March 29, 1973 an application for ordering the T.I. Parade was moved but ultimately the T.I. Parade was (sic) on June 4, 1973, i.e. for about four months of the filing of such (sic) for holding T.I. Parade. Therefore, apparently there was (sic) delay in holding the T.I. Parade. Whereas in the case in (sic) as noticed above, the T.I. Parade was held after about 25 days, i.e. within one month of the remand of the accused in the case. Therefore, the fact of the case before the Supreme Court was quite different and, as such, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. So far as the identification of PWs-1 and 4 are concerned, it appears that PW-1 Jagay Bandra has stated that when he returned after fetching water then he saw several persons fleeing away from the police camp after looting Rifles etc and his two companion Tejpal Oraon and Birendra Prasad Yadav were laying injured. He chased those miscreants and saw them from a close range. This PW-1 also identified the appellant in the Court and stated that he has identified him in the T.I. Parade also. Similarly, PW-4 Ram Naresh Singh also stated that when he came back after attending the call of the nature, he saw the miscreants fleeing away after looting Rifles etc. They were fleeing away towards eastern direction through railway line, and he identified the miscreants while they were fleeing away. This witness also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. They were fleeing away towards eastern direction through railway line, and he identified the miscreants while they were fleeing away. This witness also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. In the cross-examination also this witness specifically stated that he identified the appellant when he was fleeing away with Riffles. There is no reason to discard the testimony of this truthful witness. 18. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that at the time of occurrence, it was not dark rather there was sufficient light and, therefore it is not improbable that PW-1 and PW-4 identified the appellant. Nothing specific has been pointed out so as to make the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 untrustworthy or unbelievable. 19. So far as the evidence of DW-1 regarding publication of the photographs of the appellant in the newspapers is concerned, it appears that PW-4 in his evidence has clearly stated that he does not read newspapers and he cannot say as to whether the photograph of the appellant Hopna Manjhi was published in any newspapers. No newspapers publishing the photographs of appellant Hopna Manjhi was produced by the defence, so as to establish the fact that in fact his photograph has published. In any view of the matter, there is no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that in fact PWs- 1 and 4 had seen the appellant Hopna Manjhi or his photographs before the T.I. Parade was held in the District Jail, Dhanbad. Therefore, the defence of the appellant that before the T.I. Parade his photograph was published in the newspapers and was seen by the identifying witnesses is not tenable and, as such, is rejected. 20. In view of the discussions and findings above, I find that the prosecution has fully succeeded in establishing the charge under Section 396 IPC against the appellant. 21. I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing the offence under Section 396 IPC. 22. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. R.K. Merathia, J. 23. I agree.