JUDGMENT (1) HARI Bagh and Govinda Samantaroy were convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 394/34, IPC. They were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default each to suffer R.I. for one month more. Both of them preferred appeal before learned appellate Court which confirmed the trial Court judgment and order of sentence dismissing the appeal. Aforesaid Govinda Samantaroy has preferred this revision to impugn the judgments passed by learned Courts below. (2) STATED succinctly, the prosecution case runs as follows. The informant (P.W. 3) at the relevant time was working as Junior En- gineer in Irrigation Department. He along with his staff Dasaratha Bagh (P.W. 4) and Damburudhar Gadaba (P.W. 7) had come to village Ekamba in connection with survey work. They had put their camp in the M. E. School premises. Dasaratha Bagh (P.W. 4) and Damburudhar Gadaba (P.W. 7) were staying outside the school building in a tent. Informant (P.W. 3) was staying in a room of the school. It was about 2.00 a.m. in the night of 3/4-12-1992. Two culprits, one of whom was referred as Hari by another came to the school. They assaulted Dasaratha Bagh (P.W. 4) and the informant (P.W. 3) by fist blows and bamboo stick and robbed the informant of his blanket, chadar, one two band Radio, one ladies wrist watch and two torch lights. They confined the informant (P.W. 3) inside the room by locking the door from outside and escaped. The informant (P.W. 3) later came outside through the window and lodged report in the police station at about 5.00 a.m. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 have already been introduced. P.W. 1 is the Medical Officer, who examined. P.Ws. 3 and 4 on police requisition. P.W. 2 is a witness to seizure of stolen articles at the instance of co- convict Hari Bagh. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are independent witnesses. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case. Defence plea is one of denial and alibi. P.Ws. 3 and 4 on police requisition. P.W. 2 is a witness to seizure of stolen articles at the instance of co- convict Hari Bagh. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are independent witnesses. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case. Defence plea is one of denial and alibi. Defence has examined one witness to prove that in the night of occurrence Ekoishiya (21st day from the birth of a child) ceremony was being observed in the house of the present petitioner Govinda Samantaroy and both the convicts were present there throughout the night. (3) LEARNED Court below relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 8 and the proved documents to return the findings of guilt against the present petitioner and co-convict Hari Bagh. (4) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the present revision raises the following contentions. (I) The test identification parade conducted in the Court hall after about two months of the incident has got no evidentiary value and such identification in absence of any other evidence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. To substantiate her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on State of Orissa v. Ekan alias Ekarali Khan [(1990) 3 OCR 398]. (II) Prosecution has proceeded on the premises that the convicts were known to the informant (P.W. 3) earlier to the occurrence. Holding of test identification parade was therefore not essential in the present case. (III) The factum of discovery and seizure of stolen articles at the instance of co-convict Hari Bagh without his statement being recorded as per requirement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and such recovery having been made from an open place could not have been taken to be an incriminatory conduct of the said co-convict and such fact should not have been taken at all into consideration to return the finding of guilt against the present petitioner. (IV) If the aforesaid contentions are rejected as not tenable a lenient view on the question of sentence should be taken as there has been delay in adjudication and in the meantime about 17 years from the date of occurrence have already elapsed. (IV) If the aforesaid contentions are rejected as not tenable a lenient view on the question of sentence should be taken as there has been delay in adjudication and in the meantime about 17 years from the date of occurrence have already elapsed. LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand supports the impugned judgments and submits that all the aforesaid points raised now in the revision having been addressed in detail by the learned Courts below, nothing remains to be decided in this revision. It is often important to establish the identity of a person who a witness testifies that he saw on a relevant occasion. Sometimes the witness may testify that he had seen the person before, or even knew the person well, and, therefore, recognized the person observed on the relevant occasion. But if the witness did not recognise the person he might still testify that on some subsequent occasion he was able to identify a person as the person he had initially seen on the relevant occasion. This subsequent occasion may have been formal such as an Identification Parade conducted in accordance with Section 9 of the Evidence Act or informal, for instance seeing the person in the street or any other place. From the principle as aforesaid it is clear that the idea of holding test identification parade 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. When an accused is known before to the identifying witness/ witnesses holding a test identification parade is therefore not essential. In the present case FIR was lodged by the informant (P.W. 3) against unknown culprits. Name of co-convict Hari Bagh finds mention in the FIR in the context that one of the culprit (present petitioner as gathered from records) referred to another in that name i.e. Hari. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is mentioned in the FIR that the informant (RW. 3) had seen him on 3 to 4 earlier occasions as he was having a Kirana Store at Ekamba Nuagada (the spot village). Such narration in the FIR makes it clear that the informant (RW. 3) had known the present petitioner by face before the occurrence. But the informant (RW. 3) had seen him on 3 to 4 earlier occasions as he was having a Kirana Store at Ekamba Nuagada (the spot village). Such narration in the FIR makes it clear that the informant (RW. 3) had known the present petitioner by face before the occurrence. But the informant (RW. 3) having not named the present petitioner in the FIR and having claimed to identify the culprits if they are shown to him, holding of test identification parade in the facts and circumstances of the case may be a superfluity but not an exercise in futility rather its adds to the credibility of the evidence of RW. 3. (5) AS found from the discussions in the impugned judgments, the test identification parade was held in the Court hall. The petitioner was admittedly on bail at that time. There is no cross-examination of any prosecution witness on the point of violation of the principle of 'Ba Purdah'. There is even no suggestion to any of the identifying witness that they were not in a position to identify correctly the culprits owing to delay in holding of the test identification parade. There is no cross-examination of the I.O. so far as alleged delay in holding of test identification parade is concerned. To top it all the test identification parade report has been admitted in evidence as Ex. 9 on admission by the defence. In view of such position, the defence is now estopped from questioning the legality and genuineness of the test identification parade report or questioning the mode of proving of that report. Learned Courts below have therefore rightly held that the decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Ekan alias Ekarali Khan, [(1990) 3 OCR 398] has no application to the facts of the present case. When the informant (P.W. 3) claims that he knew the present petitioner before, when he claims that he identified him in course of the occurrence, when the test identification parade report has been admitted in evidence on admission, and mode of proof of that report (Ext. 9) has not been questioned in any Court and even in the present revision, I do not feel persuaded to dwell on the questions touching this point on the basis of assumptions only which are not based on facts'. In the present case, the test identification parade was held after about two months of the occurrence. 9) has not been questioned in any Court and even in the present revision, I do not feel persuaded to dwell on the questions touching this point on the basis of assumptions only which are not based on facts'. In the present case, the test identification parade was held after about two months of the occurrence. Eschewing the claim of the informant (P.W. 3) about his capability to identify the petitioner, whom he had also seen earlier, it cannot be assumed that after two months of the occurrence he (P.W. 3) could not have identified the present petitioner. Such a course would also militate against psychological phenomenon of the aspect and the psychological phenomenon is that human memory is very often a conditioned characteristic and any special or peculiar lineament can create impact on the human mind lasting for long, unlike routine events. (6) FROM the discussion by the learned Courts below in their judgments, it is clear that the prosecution has not proceeded on the premises that the convicts were known to the informant (P.W. 3) earlier to the occurrence. They have proceeded rather on the premises that present petitioner was known to the informant (P.W. 3) before and that too by his face and not by his name. In such situation, it was obvious for the informant (P.W. 3) not to name the culprits in the FIR. As the FIR was against unknown culprits, the investigating agency perhaps thought it proper to hold the test identification parade just to reaffirm that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction. In absence of any preju- dice to the convicts, such a course adopted during investigation, though a superfluous exercise so far as the present petitioner is concerned, cannot be held to have the potency to vitiate the trial. In the aforesaid premises, contention Nos. I and II raised by learned counsel for the petitioner must fail. Coming to contention No. (Ill), it is well settled in law that the conduct of an accused is relevant only against him and not against the co-accused. But in the present case the factum of recovery of stolen articles which were identified by the informant (P.W. 3) in a subsequent test identification parade is relevant to the extent that those articles were in fact stolen as alleged. But in the present case the factum of recovery of stolen articles which were identified by the informant (P.W. 3) in a subsequent test identification parade is relevant to the extent that those articles were in fact stolen as alleged. And such a fact is only a piece of corroborative evidence dehors the conduct of co-convict Hari Bagh. (7) LEARNED Courts below taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety have returned the findings of guilt against the present petitioner. The evidence of P.W. 3 as found from the impugned judgments is corroborated by P.W. 4, P.W. 1 and factum of identification in the test identification parade and factum of recovery of stolen articles which is relevant to the extent as discussed supra. I do not find any error or infirmity so far as the decision making process by learned Courts below is concerned. In the premises as aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. (8) THE occurrence happened in the night of 3-12-1992. THE stolen articles were recovered during investigation. Regard being had to the nature of allegation, nature of the injury sustained by the victims including P.W. 3, adjudicatory delay in the matter, ends of justice would be best served if the period of substantive imprisonment is reduced to period already undergone and further the petitioner is saddled with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence the revision is allowed in part. Revision partly allowed.