JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 96/11 of 1997 found the Appellants guilty of offence u/s s 457,302/34, Indian Penal Code & Section 9(B) of the Indian explosives Act. He sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life for offence u/s 302/34, I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence u/s 457, I.P.C & rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence u/s 9(B) of Indian Explosives Act with further direction for concurrent running of the sentences so recorded. The aforesaid Judgment & order of sentence are impugned in this appeal. 2. A compendium of the prosecution case is as follows: Deceased Antaryami Tripathi was a doctor by profession. He with his family consisting his wife, three daughters & a son Abani (also a deceased) were living at Chhatia under Badachana P.S. The occurrence happened in the night of 29/30.6.1 996. It was 1.30 PM. to 2 P.M. Deceased Antaryami Tripathi was sleeping in one of the bed room closing the door from inside. His son Abani (deceased) was sleeping in another bed room & his wife (informant PW.16) with her three daughters, were sleeping in another bedroom. Informant (PW.16) heard sound of heavy knocking on the door of the bed room opening, towards Kitchen. Thinking that her husband was knocking at the door, she opened the door to find to her dismay 5/6 persons holding 'Bhujali' & Iron rod standing outside. Those intruders rushed into the bed room. Her daughters woke up. One of the intruders enquired regarding whereabouts of her husband saying that they have come to kill him. They let loose terror in the house by throwing bombs & refusing to go without achieving their objective of killing her (informant's) husband. Hearing the noise, son of the deceased came out of his room. Husband of the informant, deceased Antaryami also opened the door of his bed room. The intruders hurled bomb aiming at him: He & his son Abani received injuries. They died at the spot. One of the daughters of the deceased Antaryami tried to get help from the nearby office but in vain. After the intruders decamped from the spot, villagers were called & the police was intimated. The investigation was taken up first by the general police of Badachana P.S. & subsequently by the Crime Branch. They died at the spot. One of the daughters of the deceased Antaryami tried to get help from the nearby office but in vain. After the intruders decamped from the spot, villagers were called & the police was intimated. The investigation was taken up first by the general police of Badachana P.S. & subsequently by the Crime Branch. On completion of investigation Inspector C.I.D., Crime Branch (P.W.22) submitted charge-sheet against the Appellants & one Kartik Ch. Behera showing others named Nari ' Narayan Parida, Ganesh Rout ' Golia & Jugal Behera ' Pradhan as absconders. 3. Prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the charge. P.W. 16 is the informants PW17 is her daughter. PW14 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the Tl. Parade. P.Ws. 1 to 13 & 18 are, post occurrence witnesses, who came to the spot after the occurrence. P.W. 15 is the constable, who took the dead bodies of the deceased Antaryami Tripathi & Abani Tripathi for post-mortem examination. PW.19 is the S.I., who received the telephonic message about the occurrence, reduced the oral report of the informant into writing, took up investigation & continued the same till 4.7.1996. P.W21 is the Investigating Officer, who took charge of investigation from PW19 & continued the same till 15.7.1996. PW22 is the Inspector of C.I.D. Crime Branch, who took charge of investigation on 15.7.1996 & submitted charge-sheet on completion of investigation. P.W20 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of both the deceased. Defence plea is one of complete denial of the charge but none was examined by the defence. 4. Learned Trial Court on considerations of materials on record & especially the evidence of PWs. 16 & 17, returned the finding of guilt as aforesaid against the Appellants & acquitted Kartik Ch. Behera. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of identification by P. Ws. 16 & 17 & that P.W. 16 has identified Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida in the Tl. Parade & in the Court during her examination, but such identification by PW16 is not free from blemishes including violation of the principle of "Ba-Purdah". It is further submitted that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida could.not be identified in the Tl. Parade by P.W. 17 though she is also an eye witness. Parade & in the Court during her examination, but such identification by PW16 is not free from blemishes including violation of the principle of "Ba-Purdah". It is further submitted that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida could.not be identified in the Tl. Parade by P.W. 17 though she is also an eye witness. It is contended with vehemence that in view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, conviction of Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida is not sustainable in eyes of law. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that Appellant No: 2 Sanatan Swain, though arrested during investigation, was not put to Tl. Parade & he was identified only in Court by P.W16 & P.W17. It is further contended that making improvement over her earlier statement, P.W. 17 adduced evidence to the effect that she had known Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain before hand, as he was an old patient of his father & she further testified that she could identify Sanatan Swain in course of the occurrence. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that conviction of the Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain has also no basis especially in view of the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, supports the impugned Judgment. 6. It is agreed at the Bar that the entire prosecution case is based on evidence of P. Ws. 16 & 17; if they are believed there is no escape for the Appellants & if they are disbelieved there remains no basis for conviction of the Appellant. In view of such position, we propose to zero our discussion on the aforesaid points alone. 7. Admittedly Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was arrested on 12.7.1996 by P.W21 & he was forwarded to Court on 13.7.1996. It is further admitted that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida was arrested on 8.9.1996 by P.W22 & he was forwarded to Court on 9.9.1996. It is further admitted that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida was put to T.I. parade on 12.9.1996 & the T.I. parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PW14). Admittedly Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was not put to T.I. parade. It is further admitted that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida was put to T.I. parade on 12.9.1996 & the T.I. parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (PW14). Admittedly Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was not put to T.I. parade. Learned Trial Court in paragraph-11 of the judgment has deprecated such laches in the investigation in the following words.: As a matter of fact I find laches on the part of the Investigating. Officer by omitting to give requisition to the Learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur for holding T.I. Parade in respect of accused Sanatan & Kartik. Had they done so, there could have been a chance to definitely ascertain regarding the complicity of the said persons III the crime & the prosecution case could have been fortified... Making such an observation Learned Trial Court has proceeded to discuss some of the case laws & has held thus: From the above authorities on the point of identification it follows that if the claim of ocular witnesses that they knew the accused already is found to be true, the failure to hold a test identification parade is inconsequential. In order to justify the finding of guilt against Appellant No. 2: Sanatan Swain, Learned Trial Court has relied solely on the evidence of P.W. 17. Learned Trial Court has relied solely on the evidence of PW.17. Learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W. 16. mother of P.W17 though she (P.W16) also identified Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain for the first time in the Court. Learned Trial Court has held that P W17 had known Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain earlier to the occurrence as he (Sanatan Swain) is an old patient of her deceased father. Learned Trial Court has come to the finding about such knowledge on the part of P.W. 17 on the basis of the facts that P W.16 in the F.I.R. has mentioned that her eldest daughter knows one of the culprits & the Patient Register (Ext. 10) seized during investigation shows that Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was perhaps the last patient in the night on 29.6.1996 (occurrence night) to receive treatment from her (P.W.17's) deceased father. 10) seized during investigation shows that Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was perhaps the last patient in the night on 29.6.1996 (occurrence night) to receive treatment from her (P.W.17's) deceased father. P.W17 had not stated before the first Investigating Officer (P.W.1 9) to the effect that she had seen Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain prior to the occurrence but subsequently however she stated before P.W. 22 that she had known Sanatan Swain to be an old patient of her deceased father. 8. In view of such evidence, the contradiction in the evidence of PW 17 on the point of her prior knowledge about Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain was dismissed as a mere omission by Learned Trial Court. 9. PW.16 had no prior knowledge about Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain. He could have been put to T.I. Parade, but the I.O. for the reasons best known to him did not put Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain to T.I. Parade. PW.16 for the first time identified him in Court during her examination.The occurrence happened on 29.6.1996 & PW16 was examined in Court on 27.8.1997, almost about 14 months after the occurrence. From her evidence it is further found that P.W. 16 identified Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain in Court sayirg that he was showing her a bomb. No further overt act having been alleged against him, dock identification of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain after about 14 months of the occurrence by PW.16 is valueless in the light of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra V.C. Shukla and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Kanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala, & Hari Nath and Another Vs. State of U.P., . 10. Coming to the question of dock identification of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain by PW.17, it is found that the prosecution has proved the Patient Register of the deceased doctor vide Ext. 10, but the relevant entry showing name of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain as last patient in the occurrence night has not been proved. When the deceased father of PW.17 was maintaining a Patient Register & it is asserted by her (PW.17) that Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain had also come earlier to her father as a patient earlier entries in the Patient Register could have also been proved to justify the claim of P.W. 17. When the deceased father of PW.17 was maintaining a Patient Register & it is asserted by her (PW.17) that Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain had also come earlier to her father as a patient earlier entries in the Patient Register could have also been proved to justify the claim of P.W. 17. That was also not done. P.W. 16 having mentioned in the F.I.R. that her eldest daughter knows one of the culprits, said omnibus assertion could have been elaborated to inspire confidence of the Court to at least include that such culprit, whom her elder daughter knew, is a patient of the deceased. P.W. 17 could have stated about Sanatan Swain to be present among the culprits in her first statement before the police because oral report of PW.16 was reduced into writing by PW19 followed by examination of witnesses including P.W. 17. She having not stated regarding her prior knowledge about Sanatan Swain in her first statement recorded by P.W. 19, & her (P.W. 17's) attention having been drawn to such an omission in her first statement, the said omission on cross-reference to the evidence of the first Investigating Officer (P.W.19) is to be held to be a contradiction u/s 145 of Evidence Act & any subsequent development made by her in course of re-examination by the subsequent I.O. (i.e., PW.22) is to be held as mere improvement. 11. The justification for identifying Sanatan Swain in paragraph-5 of P.W. 17's evidence is that in the occurrence night at about 8.00 P.M. Sanatan Swain had come to his father for medical consultation. Taking into consideration the narratives of the occurrence which took place in quick succession & the state of mind of the inmates of the house from the point of entries of the culprits being awaken from sleep, P W.17 might have also mis-identified one of the culprits as Sanatan Swain, who coincidentally had come to his father as the last patient in the night. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, the dock identification of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain by P W17 does not inspire confidence in us. Conviction of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain Under Sections 457/302/34 I.P.C. & Section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, therefore, cannot be held to have any basis. 12. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, the dock identification of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain by P W17 does not inspire confidence in us. Conviction of Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain Under Sections 457/302/34 I.P.C. & Section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, therefore, cannot be held to have any basis. 12. Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida was identified by P.W. 16 in the T.I Parade held on 12.9.1996 inside the Sub-Jail, Jajpur Town. He was also identified in the Court by PW16 & while so identifying him in Court, P.W16 stated that at the relevant time he was brandishing a 'Bhujali'. On the basis of identification of Appellant No. 1 in the T.I. Parade & in the Court, by P.W16 Learned Trial Court recorded the conviction against him. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellants impugns the aforesaid identification evidence on the following grounds: (i) There has been violation of the principle of 'Sa-Purdah' in as much as there is consistent objection by Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida from the very beginning to the effect that he has been. shown to the identifying witnesses; (ii) When out of the four identifying witnesses, only one has identified Appellant No. 1, the identification by one witness alone is to be disbelieved; (iii) P.W. 16 having omitted to say about burning of lights, in her statement recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is to be held that no light was burning in the house; & (iv) There being no other corroborative evidence, conviction of Appellant No. 1 only on the basis of the identification evidence is bad in law. 14. It is well settled in law that the value of identification depends on the following most important facts. Firstly, the persdn who identifies an accused has had no opportunity of seeing hin after commission of the crime & before identification; secondly, no mistakes have been made by the identifying witness or the mistakes made by him are negligible; thirdly, the identification has been held without much delay; fourthlyr,the Magistrate conducting the identification parade has acted fairly & has conducted the identification in due observance of the procedure; & lastly, the culprits and Ors. mixed up with him have been put to T.I. Parade without much make-up. 15. mixed up with him have been put to T.I. Parade without much make-up. 15. Here, there has been allegation regarding violation of the principle of 'Ba-Purdah', which means that the culprit was not kept in proper 'purdah' & the identifying witnesses had an opportunity of seeing the culprit, i.e., Appellant No. 1 before identification. In order to substantiate such stand, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following facts: (i) Appellant No. 1 before the Magistrate raised objection to the effect that he was shown to the identifying witnesses; & (ii) In his statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. in reply to question Nos. 5 & 6, he stated that inside the police station he was shown to the witnesses by the police. 16. On thorough scrutiny of the record, it is found that Appellant No. 1 was arrested on 8.9.1996 at 5 p.m. He was forwarded to the Court on 9.9.1996, & on the same day he was remanded to judicial custody. PW.22 arrested him. If Appellant No. 1 would have been shown to the identifying witnesses, he would have been shown by PW.22, who is the Inspector of C.I.D., Crime Branch & had the exclusive opportunity to do so. There is no suggestion to P.W. 22 as to when or on which date, after the arrest, Appellant No. 1 was shown to the identifying witnesses. Only a general suggestion to the effect that after arrest of Appellant No. 1, he (P.W.22) showed him to the informant & other members of her family has been made which suggestion P.W. 22 has denied. If the Investigating Officer (PW.22) would have shown Appellant No. 1 to the identifying witnesses before identification, P.W. 17 would have never failed to identify him in the Tl. Parade. The defence has tried to elicit nothing on cross-examination of PW.22 as to when Appellant No. 1 was arrested, as to when he was produced in Court & as to when he was'taken from Court to the concerned jail on judicial remand etc. If there would have been proper cross-examination & there would have been something in the cross-examination to the effect that there was opportunity on the part of the I.O. to show Appellant No. 1 to the identifying witnesses during the interregnum, the appreciation would have been different. 17. If there would have been proper cross-examination & there would have been something in the cross-examination to the effect that there was opportunity on the part of the I.O. to show Appellant No. 1 to the identifying witnesses during the interregnum, the appreciation would have been different. 17. The other fact, on which this contention is based, is the objection of Appellant No. 1 before the Magistrate (P.W.14), who conducted the Tl. Parade. A thorough scrutiny of the Tl. Parade Report in Column No. 10 shows that Appellant No. 1 raised objection & Learned Magistrate in the Tl. Parade Report (Ext. 11) has noted the objection as follows: The suspected person Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida raised objection & took the plea that he was previously exposed to witness Annapurna Tripathy & other witnesses like Atasi, Asima & Ambika during police custody. The objection so raised by Appellant No. 1 makes a sweeping allegation against all the identifying witnesses & against the police. In the light of the aforesaid objection, suggestion has been given to PW.22 to the effect that Appellant No. 1 was shown to PW.16 & other identifying witnesses. Fact remains that out of four identifying witnesses, only Annapurna Tripathy (P.W.16) could identify Appellant No. 1 & other witnesses could not at all identify him. Such a fact itself goes a long way to prove that the objection raised by Appellant No. 1 & the suggestion given to P.W. 22 on the line of the aforesaid objection are general in nature, & had the prosecution shown Appellant No. 1 to the identifying witnesses, all the identifying witnesses would have easily identified Appellant No. 1. On the basis of such general allegation, therefore, sole testimony of the identifying witness P.W. 16, the Magistrate (P.W.14), who conducted theTI. Parade & the I.O. (P.W.22) cannot be disbelieved & we are constrained to hold that there has been no violation of the principle of 'Ba-Purdah'. 18. The second contention raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellants is too far fetched. Parade & the I.O. (P.W.22) cannot be disbelieved & we are constrained to hold that there has been no violation of the principle of 'Ba-Purdah'. 18. The second contention raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellants is too far fetched. Identification by a v/itness depends on many facts an one of such facts is that power to identify varies according to the power of observation, & observation might be based upon small minutiae, which, a witness cannot himself describe or explain; further, the power of observation & memory of different persons vary, & on the basis of mere fact that some witnesses have failed to identify a culprit does not necessarily, therefore, render the identification by other witnesses valueless. In the present case, it is found from the evidence of P. Ws. 16 & 17 that P.W. 16 is the person, who opened the door hearing the knocking sound & saw the culprits first. She is the person, who had conversation with them. By then her daughters, i.e., other identifying witnesses had not yet woken up. Hearing the noise, other identifying witnesses woke up & in a fear stricken state of mind they witnessed which, in minutes brought huge misfortune to the entire family. During the transaction, one of her daughters went outside seeking help. As P.W. 16 had got exposure more with the culprits, she could identify Appellant No. 1 who is one of the culprits, whereas others, i.e., daughters of PW.16 failed to identify him. Such a fact alone therefore cannot be made a ground to discard the evidence of P.W. 16 on the point of identification. 19. Coming to the third & fourth contentions raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellants, it is to the consistent prosecution case that seeing the deceased Antaryami Tripathy (husband of the informant) opening the door, the cuiprits threw a bomb aiming at him & the bomb exploded & Antaryami Tripathy died at the spot. Such a fact, which facilitated throwing of bomb aiming the deceased Antaryami Tripathy is itself sufficient to come to a conclusion that there was presence of light in the house. From the evidence of P.W. 19, it is found that he examined P.W. 16 at about 3 a.m. just after the occurrence. Such a fact, which facilitated throwing of bomb aiming the deceased Antaryami Tripathy is itself sufficient to come to a conclusion that there was presence of light in the house. From the evidence of P.W. 19, it is found that he examined P.W. 16 at about 3 a.m. just after the occurrence. In view of her state of mind at that time immediately after the occurrence, she might have omitted to say about burning of electric light in the house, but such an omission may not be relevant to disbelieve P.W. 16 on the point of identification in view of our discussion to the effect that there are other narratives in the evidence which are indicat ve of presence of lights & further it is against normal human conduct to black out the entire house before going to sleep in the night. It is well settled in law that if identification evidence is convincing, conviction call be based on the basis of such evidence even without corroboration. We, therefore, find no justification to accept the third & fourth contentions of Learned Counsel for the Appellants. 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh have observed that if pot holes were to be ferreted out from the proceedings of the Magistrate holding T.I. Parade, then possibly no T.I. Parade can escape from one or two lapses & T.I. Parades would become unusual. Taking clue from the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we feel constrained to hold that any lapses, which do not strike at the root of the identification evidence & do not shatter it totally any lapses at the fringe, should not be attached with undue importance. In the present case, P.W. 16 is a lady, before whose eyes her husband & young son were killed. She having exposed herself to talk with the culprits & having opportunity to see them, she cannot be held to have been actuated with a motive to pick up a wrong person in the identification. 21. Taking into consideration the evidence on record in its entirety, we hold that P.W. 1.6 has correctly identified Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court, & we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the Learned Court below on this score. 22. 21. Taking into consideration the evidence on record in its entirety, we hold that P.W. 1.6 has correctly identified Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court, & we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the Learned Court below on this score. 22. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we set aside the conviction & consequent sentence recorded against Appellant No. 2 Sanatan Swain & up hold the conviction & sentence recorded against Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra ' Dharani Parida. Appellant. No. 2 Sanatan Swain be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed