Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Both the appeals have been heard together because they arise out of same impugned judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary has been convicted under Sec.396 I.P.C. and has been awarded punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default he has to undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant Kajrashan Noniya (Cri. Appeal No. 322/2002) has been convicted under Sec.396 I.P.C. for which he has been awarded the same sentence as awarded to Bhikhari Chaudhary. He has further been convicted under Sec. 412 I.P.C. for which he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. Considering the nature of offence, the nature of evidence on record to implicate the two appellants and their defence, it is not necessary to go into details of the prosecution case as mentioned in the fardbeyan of Ranjit Pandey (P.W. 12). It is sufficient to notice that the fardbeyan of the aforesaid informant was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Sri R.N. Tiwary at the house of the informant on 31.5.92 at 4.30 A.M. It disclosed that in the night of 30.5.92 at 11.15 P.M. a dacoity was committed in his house by 20-25 unknown miscreants and in the same occurrence, besides looting the household articles, the criminals fired and killed Dharmnath Pandey, the father of the informant. The resultant F.I.R. was registered as Daraunda P.S. case no. 48/92. The fardbeyan has been marked as Ext. 5 and the formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 7 After investigation P.W. 13 Ram Nath Tiwary, the then Officer-in-charge of Daraunda P.S. submitted chargesheet against some of the accused persons including appellant Kajrashan Noniya under Sections 396 and 412 I.P.C. According to his evidence, further investigation was carried on by one Dashrath Singh, S.I. of police and he also submitted a chargesheet under Sec.396 I.P.C. against appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary. 4. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed to which both the appellants pleaded not guilty. From the trend of cross examination and submissions it appears that the appellants have not disputed the occurrence of dacoity and killing of Dharmnath Pandey, father of the informant, in the said occurrence on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. From the trend of cross examination and submissions it appears that the appellants have not disputed the occurrence of dacoity and killing of Dharmnath Pandey, father of the informant, in the said occurrence on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. The defence of appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary is that he was on inimical term with one Rajbi Sai, who allegedly got him identified by the witnesses while in hajat custody. The defence of appellant Kajrashan Noniya is simply of false implication. Since they have not challenged the alleged occurrence at the place and time alleged and have advanced submissions only to challenge their identification in the T.I. Parade and also the identification of certain articles in a T.I. Parade, it is not deemed relevant to refer to the prosecution case in detail or to the deposition of various prosecution witnesses, many of whom have deposed and have been cross examined in respect of allegation made against another set of co-accused who were admittedly co-villagers of the informant and who were charged with conspiracy in respect of the alleged offence. 5. For the sake of convenience the essential facts relating to appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary are noticed first. He was arrested by the police on suspicion on 4.10.93 in connection with another case, i.e., Daraunda P.S. case no. 14/93 and was remanded in this case on 5.10.93. His test identification parade was held on 4.1.94, i.e., after about three months. In that parade allegedly three witnesses claimed to identify him as one of the participants in the alleged offence. Out of those three, Shyamdeo Pandey has been examined as P.W 1 and the other witness is informant Ranjir Pandey (P.W. 12). The T.I. Parade was conducted under the charge of a Judicial Magistrate, A.K. Singh (P.W. 11). He has proved the T.I. Parade chart as Ext. 4. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of this appellant that on the face of the record that T.I. Parade was held after about three months since this appellant was remanded in this case and the ordersheet would show that at least on two occasions he was produced in Court for purpose or remand on which dates he could have been seen by the witnesses and he could have been got identified. It has further been submitted that there is no explanation for not holding the T.I. Parade for such a long time when, as per provision, in the Police Manual and settled judicial pronouncements a T.I. Parade is required to be held at the earliest and without any delay. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Bhikhari Chaudhay took up evidences of P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 and attempted to show that P.W. 1 was interested and not reliable. He also submitted that as per evidence of P.W. 11, the Magistrate, it appears that two Sipahies were present at the time of T.I. Parade in jail and, therefore, the sanctity of T.I. Parade is doubtful. On going through the evidence of relevant witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13, we are not impressed by any of the aforesaid submissions. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 12 to show that he was having any interest to get this appellant convicted. The term Sipahi used by P.W. 11 is in context of presence of jail officials, such as, jailor and there is nothing to support the submission that any police constable or police official was present at the time of holding T.I. Parade in respect of Bhikhari Chaudhary. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary, however, placed reliance upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court-(i) 1987 BBCJ 565 (Kedar Yadav vs. State of Bihar) and (ii) 2006(1) PLJR 109 : 2005 (3) PCCR 314 (PHC) (Vijay Sah vs. State of Bihar). In the case of Kedar Yadav the T.I. Parade was held after one and half months and there was no explanation for the delay. It was also noticed in the judgment that during the period of one and half months the accused was produced in Court twice and, therefore, there was not only delay in holding of the T.I. Parade but also the possibility of the witnesses having seen the accused while his production in Court could not be ruled out. In the case of Vijay Sah a Division Bench reiterated the principle that holding of T.I. Parade within a reasonable time after the arrest of the accused is a vital factor and if it is not done then there should be convincing explanation from the prosecution for the delay in conducting the T.I. Parade. In the case of Vijay Sah a Division Bench reiterated the principle that holding of T.I. Parade within a reasonable time after the arrest of the accused is a vital factor and if it is not done then there should be convincing explanation from the prosecution for the delay in conducting the T.I. Parade. In this case the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkhan Singh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003(2) PCCR 231 was noticed for the proposition that evidence of identification of accused person for the first time at the stage of trial is by its very nature, inherently to a weak character. 9. On applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the case of appellant Bhikhari Chaudhary it is found that in his case also there is delay of about three months in holding the T.I. Parade for which no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. He was also produced in Court during the said period of three months at least on two occasions and, hence, the possibility of his identification by the witnesses on those occasions cannot be ruled out. Thus, it is found that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 12 claiming to identify this appellant as one of the participants in the crime alleged is not free from doubt and, hence, this appellant deserves to be given benefit of doubt. His appeal is, accordingly, allowed. He is acquitted of charge under Sec.396 I.P.C. Since he is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with in any other cases. 10. Coming to the case of appellant Kajrashan Noniya, it is found that his involvement in the alleged crime has been proved by the prosecution on the basis of two types of evidence. Firstly, he has been identified by P.W. 1 Shyamdeo Pandey and P.W. 2 Bhagrashan Pandey in the T.I. Parade held on 10.8.92, within about three weeks of his remand in this case on 15.7.92. Both the aforesaid witnesses have claimed to identify him even in dock in the course of their deposition in the Court. T.I. Parade chart in respect of this appellant has been brought on record as Ext-9. Both the aforesaid witnesses have claimed to identify him even in dock in the course of their deposition in the Court. T.I. Parade chart in respect of this appellant has been brought on record as Ext-9. The other set of evidence against this appellant is through the Investigating Officer, P.W. 13, who has claimed that this appellant confessed his guilt and disclosed where the articles, which were subject matter of dacoity, have been kept. According to P.W. 13 the house of this appellant at village Raine within Daraunda P.S. was searched on the basis of his confession and several articles were seized as per seizure list, Ext. 8/1. On the basis of same confession the I.O. claimed to have seized articles which were subject matter of dacoity from the house of another co-accused for which the seizure list was prepared and was marked as Ext. 8/ 2. He has deposed that he had requested for holding T.I. Parade of the seized articles. P.W. 9 Arun Kumar, an Executive Officer holding the post of Circle Officer, has claimed that he held T.I. Parade of seized articles in which witnesses participated and they were identified by the Chowkidar. The T.I. Parade was held on the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate and this witness has claimed that he held the T.I. Parade in accordance with law. The chart of T.I. Parade has been marked as Ext. 3. The three lady inmates of the house where the dacoity was held have been examined as witnesses. P.W. 5 Chinta Devi @ Rita Devi, P.W. 6 Shakuntala Kumari and P.W. 7 Dr. Bimlesh Sharma (widow of the deceased) have claimed to participate in the T.I. Parade of articles and have also claimed to identify several articles which have been marked as material exhibits. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant Kajrashan Noniya that his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. would show that he attempted to take the defence that he is a co-villager of the informant and well known to the witnesses and, therefore, the T.I. Parade looses all value. It was also faintly suggested that he has given his present residence as jail custody since 15.2.92, a date prior to the alleged date of occurrence. It was also faintly suggested that he has given his present residence as jail custody since 15.2.92, a date prior to the alleged date of occurrence. So far as date of custody of this appellant is concerned, the ordersheet discloses that he was arrested and produced in Court for remand in this case and in another case on 15.7.92. Hence, there appears to be a slip of pen in noting the period of jail custody in respect of this appellant in his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. So far as the village of residence of this accused is concerned, after proper verification he has been chargesheeted by the police as a resident of village Raine under Daraunda P.S.; whereas the occurrence took place in village Baidypur-Bishanpura. Even the seizure list, Ext. 8/1, shows that articles were seized from the house of this appellant in village Raine. This appellant has not led any evidence in his aforesaid defence which could show that he belongs to village Baidypur-Bishnpura and not to village Raine. Such a defence appears to have been taken only for the sake of defence and there is no material to support such defence. 12. So far as single witness D.W. 1 examined on behalf of defence is concerned, he is a formal witness who has proved certain documents relevant in respect of some other co-accused and on behalf of these two appellants no reliance has been placed upon that defence witness. 13. On considering the evidence against appellant Kajrashan Noniya it is found that claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they identified him in T.I. Parade as well as in Court is fit to be accepted as the identification does not suffer from any legal or factual defect. The other set of evidence against this appellant also shows his involvement in the crime because there is nothing to doubt he claim of the Investigation Officer, P.W. 13, that he seized various articles which were subject matter of dacoity on the basis of confession of this appellant. The evidence of some of the witnesses who identified the seized articles, as noticed above, also suffers from no infirmity and cannot be brushed aside. The evidence of some of the witnesses who identified the seized articles, as noticed above, also suffers from no infirmity and cannot be brushed aside. Hence, it has to be held that on the basis of confession of this appellant made before the police in course of investigation several articles which have been marked as material exhibits were seized by the Investigating Officer from the house of this appellant as well as from the house of another co-accused and some of those seized articles have been identified by the reliable witnesses as articles which were subject matter of dacoity. 14. Thus, on proper consideration of entire evidence available on record it is found that conviction of Kajrashan Noniya for the offence under Sections 396 and 412 I.P.C. suffers from no infirmity. The sentence awarded to this appellant is also reasonable and in accordance with law requiring no interference. Hence, the impugned judgment and order in respect of appellant Kajrashan Noniya is found to suffer from no infirmity, legal or factual, so as to warrant any interference. Conviction of this appellant under Sections 396 and 412 I.P.C. is, therefore, confirmed. His appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. His bail bonds are, therefore, cancelled. The Court below shall take him into custody forthwith so that he may serve the remaining sentence in jail custody in accordance with law.