JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The aforesaid three appeals arise out of S.T. Case No. 174 of 1995 in which the Appellants in all the three have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada for commission of offence under Sections 394/397/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). Appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for conviction u/s 302, IPC, imprisonment for seven years for conviction u/s 397 IPC and imprisonment for five years for conviction u/s 394 of the said Code. However, these sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As it appears from the record, all the Appellants stood charged for commission of offences under Sections 394/397/302/34 IPC for having committed robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and murder in furtherance of common intention and the Appellant Ruhiya Murmu was separately charged u/s 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act for illegally possessing a country made pistol. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.4.1995 at about 6.45 P.M. the informant P.W. 1 alongwith his deceased son were returning from Saraskana weekly market in a Rajdoot motor cycle after attending to their silver jewellery business and were carrying with them some silver jewellery. On their way back at Kasipal Chhak while they were negotiating the curve, one of the Appellants dealt a lathi blow to the informant, as a result of which, the informant fell down along with his deceased son. Appellants thereafter assaulted the informant as well as the deceased son and looted their silver ornaments by terrorizing them at the point of knife. In course of incident, Appellants also stabbed to the chest of deceased causing severe bleeding injury. After collecting the booty, the Appellants decamped from the spot through the paddy fields leaving the informant and deceased as well as their Rajdoot Motor Cycle, Soon after the incident, some people arrived at the spot and having ascertained the incident they made arrangement for their shifting to Sirsa Hospital for treatment. At the same time, some persons left for Saraskana Block Office to send information about the incident over telephone to Jharpokharia Police Station. On receipt of a telephonic message from P.W.2, the O.I.C. of Jharpokharia Police Station made an entry about the said message in the Station diary and visited the spot. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. On receipt of a telephonic message from P.W.2, the O.I.C. of Jharpokharia Police Station made an entry about the said message in the Station diary and visited the spot. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the three Appellants for commission of the aforesaid offences. The plea of defence is denial of the entire prosecution case. 3. Prosecution examined twelve witnesses in order to prove the charges. Out of the said twelve witnesses, P.W.1 is the informant, victim and father of the deceased. P.W.2 was working as A.B.D.O. of Saraskana Block, who informed the O.I.C. Jharpokharia Police Station over telephone. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are post occurrence witnesses. P.W.6 is a witness, who claims to have seen the incident from a short distance. P.W.5 is a witness who weighed the seized silver ornaments under the direction of the O.I.C, Jharpokharia Police Station. P.W.8 is a witness to the seizure as well as leading to discovery of the seized articles. P.W.10 is also a seizure witness. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination and P.W.12 was the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baripada, who conducted test identification parades in respect of the suspects as well as the stolen articles. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. The trial Court on the basis of evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 12 found that P.W.1 has rightly identified all the three Appellants in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. The Appellants having led the police to the place of concealment and given recovery of the stolen articles which were also identified by the P.W.1 in the T.I. Parade, the trial Court found all the three Appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them thereunder. 4. The Judgment of the trial Court is assailed before This Court on the ground that the identifying witness P.W.1 had occasioned to see the Appellants in the police station prior to the T.I. Parade and, therefore, the T.I. parade lost its sanctity. It was further contended that if identification of the T.I. Parade is not accepted because of the reasons stated above, only on the basis of recovery of stolen articles conviction cannot be made. It was further contended that if identification of the T.I. Parade is not accepted because of the reasons stated above, only on the basis of recovery of stolen articles conviction cannot be made. It was also contended that if the evidence with regard to identification is not accepted, the offences under Sections 302 as well as 397 of the said Code only on the basis of recovery of stolen articles could not be made out and the Appellants could not have been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/397/394 and 34 IPC. Learned Counsel for the State referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 submitted that the test identification parades of Appellants as well as recovered of stolen articles had been done in accordance with law. The identifying witness had no opportunity either to see the Appellants or stolen articles prior to T.I. Parade. In view of such nature of evidence, the trial Court accepted the identification of the Appellants as well as the stolen articles relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and evidence with regard to recovery of the stolen articles at the instance of the Appellants while in custody and found the Appellants guilty of the charges. 5. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence placed before us. P.W.1 is the informant, injured and is also the father of the deceased. He is in his deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence he along with his deceased son were returning from the Saraskana Hat with some silver ornaments, which could not be sold. The said ornaments were in a box and it was tied to the back of their motor cycle. Some of the ornaments were also kept in a plastic bag. He was driving the motor cycle and his son was sitting behind him. While they arrived at Kashipal Chhak turning, he slowed the vehicle and he could see with the help of of the light of the motor cycle a person standing on the right hand side of the road and two others standing on the left hand side of the road. The man, who was standing at the right hand side of the road was wearing white pant and white shirt and he was holding a lathi. The other two persons standing on the left hand side of the road were holding lathis. The man, who was standing at the right hand side of the road was wearing white pant and white shirt and he was holding a lathi. The other two persons standing on the left hand side of the road were holding lathis. Appellant Ganesh Hansda, who was standing on the right hand side assaulted him on his right hand by means of a lathi which he was holding. He lost control over the motor cycle and fell down along with the deceased son. The other two Appellants also assaulted them by means of sticks. He gave a push to accused Ganesh Hansada. The said Appellant drew a knife and threatened him to stab. At that time he saw the other two accused persons tussling with his son on the left hand side of the road and the motor cycle had also been taken to that place. When he shouted and called for help, no one came. Thereafter all the three Appellants decamped with the box and bag containing silver ornaments. When he called his decased son, there was no response and when he went near him, he saw the deceased lying unconscious with bleeding injuries. 10 to 15 minutes thereafter some people came and he narrated about the occurrence. Some of them went to apprise the matter in the Block Office. Other persons arranged a jeep and shifted his injured son to Shirsha Hospital 20 to 25 minutes thereafter, police reached at the place of occurrence and he narrated about the occurrence before the Police, which was reduced to writing. He also stated that about three months after the occurence, he identified all the three Appellants in T.I. Parade conducted in presence of a Magistrate and he could identify all the three Appellants, who had mingled with 30 under trial prisoners. He has also stated that he identified the stolen ornaments in presence of the Magistrate at Baripada Court and the said ornaments were mixed with other ornaments. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that about one and half months after the occurrence, hearing about the apprehension of the culprits by the police, he had gone to Jharpokharia police station but the police did not show him the seized ornaments there at the police station. Thereafter, he had never gone to the police station. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that about one and half months after the occurrence, hearing about the apprehension of the culprits by the police, he had gone to Jharpokharia police station but the police did not show him the seized ornaments there at the police station. Thereafter, he had never gone to the police station. A suggestion was made to the I.O. to the effect that the police showed the ornaments to P.W.1 in the police station but such suggestion was denied. It also appears from the evidence of Judicial Magistrate P.W.12 that the Appellants had complained before him that they had been shown by the I.O. to the identifying witness at the police station for two to three days continuously in order to identify them on the T.I. Parade. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of the Appellants that they were shown to P.W.1 prior to Test Identification Parade. P.W.1 had no opportunity to see the Appellants either in the police station or otherwise. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by evidence of P.W.12 the judicial Magistrate, who conducted T.I. Parade of the Appellants as well as the stolen articles. P.W.12 in his deposition has stated that he sent P.W.1 to Baripada Circle Jail asking him to wait outside. Thereafter, he entered the jail. He picked up 30 under trial prisoners of the jail of almost of the same complexion, height and age (Sic) also dress, which were almost similar to the three Appellants. He mixed all the three suspects with those U.T.Ps. and directed them to stand on a row. Thereafter, he called the identifying witness P.W.1, gave him the brief description of the prosecution case and permitted him to identify the suspects and P.W.1 correctly identified all the three Appellants, who had been mixed with the U.T.Ps. P.W.1 also mentioned the reasons for which he could identify the three Appellants and the said reason finds place in column 11 of the T.I. Parade. Similar is the evidence with regard to identification of the stolen ornaments. Apart from identification of the Appellants and identification of the seized ornaments in T.I. Parade as well as in Court, it appears from the evidence of P.W.8 that he was requested by the police to accompany them to village Mushabani in the State of Bihar in connection with the case. Apart from identification of the Appellants and identification of the seized ornaments in T.I. Parade as well as in Court, it appears from the evidence of P.W.8 that he was requested by the police to accompany them to village Mushabani in the State of Bihar in connection with the case. This witness has stated that the police asked him to assist them and he had accompanied the police in their jeep to village Mushabani. Bihar police also went with them from Mushabani. From Mushabani they went to village Kankadaha in the State of Bihar and they arrested Appellant Deben from his house. After his arrest, the said Appellant confessed before the police to have committed dacoity with two others and also admitted to have received his share of the booty and he led the police to the place of concealment i.e. his bedroom and gave recovery of silver ornaments kept in a bag. Similarly he also accompanied the police party to village Raipahadi where Appellant Ganesh Hansda, was arrested from his house. The said Appellant while in custody also led the police and gave recovery of silver ornaments, which were hidden on a platform used for storing paddy in a bag. Thereafter all of them went to village Godagon in the State of Bihar and arrested the other Appellant Ruhiya Murmu. While in police custody, the said Appellant confessed to have committed dacoity and stabbed the deceased. He also led the police to the place of concealment and brought out the silver ornaments kept in a bag, which were concealed in a heap of straw. The evidence of P.W.8 read with P.W.12 I.O. clearly prove that the Appellants after committing the offence went to their respective villages in the State of Bihar from place of concealment. 6. Considering the above evidence regarding identification and recovery of ornaments from the houses of the Appellants, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove all the charges against all the Appellants for which they have been convicted. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment and, accordingly, dismiss the above three appeals. B.K. Patel, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed