Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. Accused Shaukat Mian was convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter to be referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under sec. 394 of the Code and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that one Md. Salim Khan on 31.1.1994 at 1.45 pm gave fardbeyan before S.I., Shri C.N. Jha of Kotwali Police Station in emergency ward of Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya that he was working as booking clerk in Paradise Cinema, Gaya and on that day he was going to deposit booking amount Rs. 41,486.00 along with another staff named Akhori Prabhat Ranjan to Punjab National Bank, Tekari Road, Gaya by Rickshaw. At about 1.00 pm when their rickshaw reached in front of Water Tower of Pilgrim Hospital on A. N. Road, two miscreants armed with Pistol stopped the rickshaw and snatched the cloth bag containing Rs. 41,486.00 from the hand of the informant Md. Salim and when Akhori Prabhat Ranjan protested, one of the miscreants fired shot which caused serious injury on his chest and thereafter the miscreants sat on a Scooter which was standing and fled away towards northern side of G.B. Road. It is said that the scooter had no number. The informant raised alarm and chased the miscreants. People carried Akhori Prabhat Ranjan on a Cot to Hospital where he died during course of treatment. The informant gave descriptions of the miscreants. On the basis of fardbeyan the Police registered Kotwali P.S. Case No. 27/ 94 dated 31.1.1994 and after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet no. 67/94 on 1.6.1994 against Sonu Mian and Bablu Mian showing appellant Md. Shaukat as absconder. It appears that the appellant was remanded in this trial with the result mentioned above. 3. No witness on behalf of the appellant was examined during trial. The defence of the appellant is total denial of the alleged occurrence and falsely implicated in the case. 4. Shaukat as absconder. It appears that the appellant was remanded in this trial with the result mentioned above. 3. No witness on behalf of the appellant was examined during trial. The defence of the appellant is total denial of the alleged occurrence and falsely implicated in the case. 4. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and they are P.W. 1, Kamta Prasad Sinha, P.W. 3, Salim Khan, P.W. 4 Raj Mohan Prasad Mishra, P.W. 5, Anup Burnwal, P.W. 6, Dr. Arvind Prasad and P.W. 7, Chaturanand Jha. It appears that no witness was examined as P.W. 2. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W. 3 is the informant, P.W. 6 is Doctor and RW. 7 is the Investigating Officer. One Binod Kumar was examined as court witness. 5. Before adverting to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution may be seen. P.W. 3, the informant, has stated that on 31.1.1994 he was working as clerk cum cashier in the Paradise Cinema. On that day at about 1.00 pm he was going to deposit a sum of Rs. 41.486.00 in Punjab National Bank, Tekari Road, Gaya on a rickshaw along with another employee of the Paradise Cinema named Akhori Prabhat Ranjan who was also carrying Rs. 400.00 in a Jhola. When they reached near Water Tower, two miscreants came and stopped the rickshaw and snatched Jhola from him. When they were snatching Jhola from Akhori Prabhat Ranjan be made protest and then he was shot at. The miscreants fled away on LML Vespa Scooter which was not bearing any number. According to this witness one miscreant was keeping the scooter in start condition and the other two misreants came before him. This witness chased the miscreants to 50 yards but they managed to escape towards G.B. Road. Akhori Prabhat Ranjan was taken to Hospital where he died just after reaching. The police came and recorded the fardbeyan over which the signature of this witness is exhibit-1. After seeing the appellant in dock, this witness stated that he is the person who had shot at Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. Akhori Prabhat Ranjan was taken to Hospital where he died just after reaching. The police came and recorded the fardbeyan over which the signature of this witness is exhibit-1. After seeing the appellant in dock, this witness stated that he is the person who had shot at Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. In cross examination this witness has stated that he has seen the appellant for the first time on the day of alleged occurrence i.e., on 31.1.1994 and second time on the day of his evidence in court and during intervening period he never saw Shaukat Mian. He has further stated that the shot fired by the appellant, hit the back portion of the deceased and the same came out from the side of armpit. This witness has been cross-examined at length but there is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve his version. 6. P.W. 4, Raj Mohan Prasad Mishra was Manager of Paradise Cinema Hall. He has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence at about 1.00 pm he was in the campus of Cinema Hall. He heard a loud sound. He came out of the Cinema Hall and rushed towards the place where people were going. When he reached near Water Tower he saw one of his staff named Akhori Prabhat Ranjan in injured condition. He saw fire arms wound on his chest. Blood was oozing. He has further stated that people who had collected there were uttering that on being pointed out by Naseem Mian, Shaukat Mian and Sonu Mian stopped rickshaw and snatched Jhola from Salim Mian which contained Rs. 41.486/-. He saw Salim Mian running towards the scooter of the miscreants and before he could reach the hospital, Akhori Prabhat Ranjan was declared dead. According to this witness in his presence the police recorded the statement of Salim Mian over which he also put his signature. He has identified his signature as exhibit-2 and also signature of Shakil Ahmad Khan which has been marked as exhibit-2/1. This witness has admitted in cross examination that he did not see the occurrence and his evidence is based upon information gathered from the people who had collected at the place of occurrence. 7. P.W. 5, Anup Kumar Burnwal who was also an employee of Paradise Cinema Hall has stated that on hearing sound he went and saw Akhori Prabhat Ranjan in injured condition near water tower. 7. P.W. 5, Anup Kumar Burnwal who was also an employee of Paradise Cinema Hall has stated that on hearing sound he went and saw Akhori Prabhat Ranjan in injured condition near water tower. He has also stated that the people who had collected there were uttering that on being pointed by Naseem Mian, accused Sonu Mian snatched the Jhola from Salim Mian, Sonu Mian also tried to snatch Jhola from Akhori Prabhat Ranjan who refused to hand over the same and then Shaukat Mian fired at Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. He has also admitted in cross examination that he did not see the occurrence and his evidence is based upon the information which he gathered from the people who had collected there. 8. P.W. 1, Kamta Prasad Sinha is the owner of Paradise Cinema Hall and also an advocate. He learnt about the incident while he was in civil court. He has stated that he received information that the cashier of Paradise Cinema Hall was going to Punjab National Bank with Akhori Prabhat Ranjan to deposit Rs. 41,486.00 but in the way three miscreants snatched the amount and also made Akhori Prabhat Ranjan injured by fire arms. When this witness reached the Hospital he saw Akhori Prabhat Ranjan dead. 9. Court witness no. 1 Vinod Kumar has come forward to say that on 31.1.1994 at about 1.00 pm he was coming after closing his shop situated in Mohalla Gol Pathar and when he reached near the Clinic of Dr. Shyam Nandan Prasad he saw Salim and Akhori Babu were going to Bank on a rickshaw and Naseem Mian from behind gave signal to stop the rickshaw. He also saw a scooter in starting condition over which three persons were sitting. Sonu Mian came near rickshaw and snatched the Jhola from the informant Salim. Appellant Shaukat Mian was demanding Jhola from Akhori Prabhat Ranjan who refused to give the same and then he fired at him. After opening the fire all the three miscreants fled away on the scooter. He has identified the appellant in court room. In cross examination this witness has admitted that the appellant Shaukat Mian was known to him from before. Nothing has been taken in cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. 10. P.W. 6, Dr. Arvind Prasad has proved the post mortem report, exhibit-3. He has identified the appellant in court room. In cross examination this witness has admitted that the appellant Shaukat Mian was known to him from before. Nothing has been taken in cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. 10. P.W. 6, Dr. Arvind Prasad has proved the post mortem report, exhibit-3. He has admitted that he has no personal idea about the findings made in the post mortem report. It appears from the post mortem report that the same was done over the dead body of Akhori Prabhat Ranjan on 31.1.1994 at 4.00 pm.The doctor found the injury caused by fire arms. Cause of death is shock and haemorrhage. Time elapsed since the death within two to three hours from the time of post mortem examination. 11. P.W. 7, Chatura Nand Jha on 31.1.1994 was Officer Incharge of Kotwali Police Station. At about 1.15 pm he received O.D. slip from Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya. He made its entry in the station diary and proceeded to Pilgrim Hospital along with police force. The statement of informant Md. Salim Khan was recorded. The same was read over and explained to him who after finding the same to be correct put his signature. Shakil Ahmad Khan and Raj Mohan Prasad Mishra also put their respective signature over the fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan exhibit-4 and the formal F.I.R. exhibit-4/1. Thereafter he prepared inquest report through carbon process in presence of the witnesses. He recorded the statement of witnesses. During cross examination, this witness has stated that the informant did not name any of the accused before him. As this witness was transferred from Kotwali Police Station he handed over the charge of further investigation to S.I. Sri R.R Choudhary who completed the rest part of the investigation. 12. It was argued that the evidence of RW. 3 cannot be accepted as .for the first time he identified the appellant in court on 27.4.2001 as the person who shot at the deceased. Learned counsel argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 31.1.1994 and this witness identified the appellant in court room on 27.4.2001 i.e., after a gap of more than seven years and prior to identification neither T.I. parade of the appellant was held nor this witness knew him from before. Learned counsel thus argued that the evidence of RW. 3 has no legal significance. Learned counsel thus argued that the evidence of RW. 3 has no legal significance. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court given in the case of Soni vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1982(3) SC C. 368. 13. As mentioned above, the alleged occurrence took place on 31.1.1994. The Police after concluding investigation submitted charge sheet no. 67/94 dated 1.6.1994 showing the appellant as absconder. The appellant was remanded in the case on 10.4.1997. Therefore, when the case was under police investigation, the appellant was absconding. The appellant was therefore not available to the Investigating Officer for holding the T.I. parade. The T.I. parade could not be held not due to any laches or design on the part of the investigating agency. It is admitted position that the alleged occurrence of robbery and murder took place during day, time. The appellant admittedly was not known to the informant from before. In Kanan vs. State of Kerala ( AIR 1979 SC 1127 ) Murtuza Fazal AN, J., observed:- "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I. parade to test powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his 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 the identification of an accused for the first time in court." 14. It is also settled law that identification of an accused in court is the substantive evidence. It is true that identification of the accused by any witness for the first time in court is a weak evidence but in the present case there is evidence of court witness no. 1 who has seen the occurrence from his own eyes and has named the appellant as the person who shot dead Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. Therefore, failure to held T.I. parade would not vitiate the evidence of RW. 3 and C.W 1. 15. Now there is consistent evidence of RW. 1 who has seen the occurrence from his own eyes and has named the appellant as the person who shot dead Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. Therefore, failure to held T.I. parade would not vitiate the evidence of RW. 3 and C.W 1. 15. Now there is consistent evidence of RW. 3 and C.W. 1 that when deceased Akhori Prabhat Ranjan refused to hand over the Jhola, the appellant shaukat Mian fired at him. The doctor has found fire arms injury on the person of the deceased Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage caused by fire arm injury. 16. No other point was raised on behalf of the appellant. The learned A.P.P on the other hand, pointed out that coaccused Sonu Mian alias Sajjad and Bablu Mian against their conviction preferred Cr. Appeal No. 246 of 1996(DB) before this Court which was dismissed. 17. On a careful consideration of entire facts, evidence and the circumstances of the case, we find that it is established that the appellant not only took part in the robbery but also committed the murder of Akhori Prabhat Ranjan. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted under sections 394 and 302 of the Code and we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed against the appellant. 18. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under sections 394 and 302 of the Code we sentence the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under sec. 302 of the Code. He is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under sec. 394 of the Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed. Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 19 I agree.