Vinod Prasad, J.;— Challenge in these two connected appeals by the four appellants namely Iqbal, Khurshid, Kishnu and Kirpa are to their conviction under section 396 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of 10 years RI recorded by VIth Additional Session's Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 75 of 1980, State Vs. Kirpa and others relating to P.S. Parikshatgarh, District Meerut vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.1980. 2. Encapsulated prosecution allegations, as were mentioned in the written FIR Ext. Ka-1 and later on testified by the fact witnesses during the trial, were that informant Patiya Singh P.W. 1 and his brothers Saran Singh and Sukhbir Singh were all resident of village Etmadpur, P.S. Parikshatgarh, District Meerut. Patiya's house was only few paces away from the house of Saran Singh and Sukhbir Singh. On the incident night 21/22.7.79 at 1 A.M., dacoity with murder was committed at the house of Saran Singh and Sukhbir Singh, in which Saran Singh was shot dead. Incident was witnessed by the house inmates in the torches lights of Ganga Saran, Daya Chand and Devi Singh and the electric light emanating from the tube well. The dacoity incident had lasted for near about one and half hours. After committing dacoity, the dacoits had decamped with the looted bounty. 3. After dacoity, informant Patiya Singh (P.W. 1) entered into the house of his brothers where he found Saran Singh dead in the enclosed courtyard and thereafter P.W. 1 dictated FIR, Ext. Ka-1, to Kali Charan, who scribed it and thereafter, P.W. 1 measured a distance of six Kms to police station Parikshatgarh along with Kartar Singh, Ganga Saran, Meharban and lodged his F.I.R. as crime no. 258 of 79, under section 396 I.P.C. 4. Constable Madan Pal P.W. 9 recorded the said FIR at 7.30 A.M. by preparing chik FIR and GD entry Ext. Ka13 and Ka-14 respectively. During investigation, S.O. Nepal Singh had arrested the accused Kirpa, Kishnu, Iqbal and had lodged them in Police Station penitentiary and GD entry in that respect, being Ext. Ka-15 was also sketched by P.W. 9. Said witness had also prepared GD Ext. Ka-16 by which the accused persons were dispatched for district jail Meerut, through constables Shishu Pal Singh, P.W.10, accompanied by C.P. Babu Ram and Muktiar Singh. 5. Investigation into the crime was commenced by S.O. Nepal Singh P.W. 8, in whose presence, FIR was registered. Ka-15 was also sketched by P.W. 9. Said witness had also prepared GD Ext. Ka-16 by which the accused persons were dispatched for district jail Meerut, through constables Shishu Pal Singh, P.W.10, accompanied by C.P. Babu Ram and Muktiar Singh. 5. Investigation into the crime was commenced by S.O. Nepal Singh P.W. 8, in whose presence, FIR was registered. Along with S.I. Harpal Singh and other police constables, P.W. 8 came to the incident scene and there he received the list of looted articles from Jai Singh and Sukhbir Singh and copied them in the case diary, which is Ext. Ka-9 and Ka-10. S.I. Harpal Singh was deputed to conduct inquest on the cadaver of the deceased and I.O. P.W. 8 himself interrogated and penned down statements of witnesses Sukhbir Singh P.W.1, Jai Singh and many others. He had seized the torches and the lantern and had prepared their recovery memos Ext. Ka-20 and 21. Thereafter I.O. has inspected the spot and sketched site plan map Ext. Ka-22. 6. At the pointing out of dacoit Kirpa, P.W.8 had recovered a chamta (fork) and some attires. Subsequent further investigation was conducted by S.O. Incholi. 7. From the statement of S.I. Bhanu Pratap Singh S.O. Incholi, P.W.7, it seems that intervening investigation was conducted by S.I. Virendra Singh Bisnoi from whom, P.W. 7 had taken over the investigation. P.W.7 had received the test identification memo of the accused and on the basis of investigation conducted by him and his predecessor Investigating Officers, he had charge sheeted the accused on 1.10.80 under section 396 I.P.C. vide Ext. Ka-8. 8. Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was performed by S.I. Harpal Singh P.W. 4, who had prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers vide Ext. Ka-4 and Ka-5. The said witness had also collected plain and blood stained earth from the incident scene and had prepared it's recovery memo Ext. Ka-6 and thereafter, sealing the dead body, it was handed over to constables Ram Saran (P.W. 5) and Hari Kishan for being carried to the mortuary for autopsy purposes. 9. Autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased was performed on 23.9.79 at 2 P.M. by Dr S.P. Goel. According to the doctor, one and half day had passed since murder of the deceased. 9. Autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased was performed on 23.9.79 at 2 P.M. by Dr S.P. Goel. According to the doctor, one and half day had passed since murder of the deceased. He had an average built body, rigor mortis was present in lower limbs and had passed off from upper limbs, no decomposition of the body had started. Deceased eleventh rib on the left side was fractured, his pleura and peritoneum were lacerated and cavity contained blood. Deceased had artificial dentures. His stomach was empty and his small and large intestine contained gases and fecal matters. Following external physical ante mortem injuries were detected by the doctor:- "A.M. INJURY"- "1. Gun shot wound of entry 3cm x 2 cm x Abdomen cavity deep on the left side back of the chest on the posterior auxiliary line, 20cm below the left arm, pit. Part of spleen is coming out from the wound. Scorching and tattooing present around the wound. 2. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on the back of the left elbow. 3. Septic wound 1cm x 2cm x muscle on the front of the 2nd long finger Rt. Dirty bandage present on the wound. Articles clothes sealed & handed over to the constable accompanied. Note- 28 pellets and pieces of wed recovered from the abdominal cavity and sent to the SSP, Meerut through CMO, Meerut. 23.9.79" Constable Shishu Pal Singh P.W. 10 had brought arrested accused Khurshid, Iqbal, Kirpa and Kishnu from Parikshatgarh Police Station penitentiary to district jail, Meerut along with constables Babu Ram and Mukhtiar Singh. So long as these accused were in their custody, they were constantly kept under veil and nobody was allowed to identify them and in that condition, they were lodged in district jail, Meerut. 10. Sita Ram Singh P.W. 6, Special Executive Magistrate, had got conducted identification parade of the accused on 15.11.79 in district jail, Meerut and had prepared test identification memo. While conducting the identification parade, all the necessary precautions required to be taken for conducting test identification parade were observed and all special signs were concealed. 10. Sita Ram Singh P.W. 6, Special Executive Magistrate, had got conducted identification parade of the accused on 15.11.79 in district jail, Meerut and had prepared test identification memo. While conducting the identification parade, all the necessary precautions required to be taken for conducting test identification parade were observed and all special signs were concealed. Sita Ram Singh (P.W. 6) had joined ten other persons with identical features in each parade and the witnesses were paraded for identification one by one and after their identification, they were made to sit at a place from where they could not contact other witnesses or had any opportunity to indulge in conversation with them. Witnesses Patiya Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Jai Singh, Smt. Laxmi, Veg Raj, Daya Chand and Devi Singh had correctly identified all the accused persons without committing any mistake. Smt. Satyapar Kaur had identified accused Kirpa, Khurshid and Kishnu correctly and had not committed any mistake. Witness Albel Singh had correctly identified accused Kirpa, Iqbal and Kishnu without committing any mistake and witness Rajveer had correctly identified accused Khurshid, Iqbal and Kirpa. Identification memo prepared by the Special Executive Magistrate, Sita Ram Singh (P.W. 6) has been proved by him as Ext. Ka-7. 11. Charge sheeting of the accused resulted in registration of case no. 90 of 1980 before C.J.M., Meerut on 14.11.80 and finding their guilt triable by Session's Court, C.J.M. had committed their case to the Session's Court vide committal order dated 7.2.80 and resultantly before the Session's Judge, Meerut, S.T. No. 75 of 1980, State Vs. Kirpa and others, was registered against accused appellants on 8.2.80. 12. The aforesaid Session's Trial was transferred to VIth Additional Session's Judge, Meerut for trial who, on 9.5.80, charged all the four appellants under section 396 I.P.C. The aforesaid charge was read out and explained to the accused who denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and resultantly to establish their guilt and to bring them to books, the trial procedure commenced. 13. Prosecution in its effort to bring home appellants' guilt examined in all 10 witnesses, out of whom informant Patiya Singh P.W. 1, Jai Singh P.W. 2 and Veg Raj P.W. 3 were the fact witnesses. 13. Prosecution in its effort to bring home appellants' guilt examined in all 10 witnesses, out of whom informant Patiya Singh P.W. 1, Jai Singh P.W. 2 and Veg Raj P.W. 3 were the fact witnesses. Formal witnesses consisted of S.I. Harpal Singh P.W. 4, who had conducted inquest on the cadaver of the deceased, constable Ram Saran P.W. 5, who had brought the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy purpose, Sita Ram Singh P.W. 6 Special Executive Magistrate, who got conducted test identification parade of the accused, third I.O. Bhanu Pratap Singh P.W. 7, first I.O. Nepal Singh P.W. 8, constable Madan Pal P.W. 9, who had recorded the GD and the chik FIR, constable Shishupal Singh P.W. 10, who had brought the accused to district jail, Meerut. 14. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidences. They further took the defence that they were not put under veil and were shown to the witnesses. Appellant Kirpa further pleaded that he had been implicated because of the rivalry with Rampal Singh and his maternal uncle Mangeram. Appellant Iqbal further stated that the witnesses knew him from before and because of police rivalry, he had been roped in the present incident. Appellants Khurshid and Kishnu had further stated that they were arrested by the police from their houses and the witnesses knew them from before and they were also shown to the witnesses at the police station and were also photographed. 15. Learned VI Additional Session's Judge, Meerut after marshaling of facts and appreciation of evidences led in the trial vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.1980 concluded, that the prosecution has established appellants guilt beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt convincingly and conclusively and therefore, convicted all the appellants for the framed charge under Sections 396 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years R.I., which conviction and sentence are now under challenge in the instant appeal. 16. Appeal was admitted in this Court in 1981 and time and again was got passed over. At last Dr. Abida Syed was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal in consonance with the Apex Court decision in Bani Singh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2639. Dr. 16. Appeal was admitted in this Court in 1981 and time and again was got passed over. At last Dr. Abida Syed was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal in consonance with the Apex Court decision in Bani Singh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2639. Dr. Abida Syed started the argument and later on she was also joined by Sri S.S. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant Iqbal and Sri S.A. Zilani, learned Advocate for appellant Khurshid. 17. I have heard both the learned Advocates along with the learned amicus curiae for all the appellants and Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned AGA for the State and have gone through the entire material on record. 18. Snipping the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, it was contented on behalf of the appellants that admittedly the incident night was pitch dark (Amawasya night) when there was no visible moon and therefore, in the flashing of torches, identification of the appellants was impossible. Informant and his brothers were influential people of the locality and the police with their connivance had booked the appellants in a fabricated case after arresting them from their houses and showing them to the witnesses at the police station. None of them were ever put under veil. Many witnesses were cited in the first information report but they were deliberately withheld by the prosecution from being examined during the trial and only interested, partisan and related witnesses were examined. It was next submitted that no recovery of any looted articles was made from appellants possession and therefore, their participation in the crime is extremely doubtful. Sri Zilani further submitted that the entire prosecution version is incredible, as during investigation but for the four appellants, all the three Investigating Officers failed to identify and/or locate other eight accused persons, who were socio criminises and had committed the dacoity with murder. No neighbor appeared to affirm informants version. It was further contended that conduct of the witnesses as well as that of the dacoits were so unnatural that it does not inspire any confidence at all. Referring to various depositions of the witnesses, it was submitted that the appellants were residents of the neighbouring villages and therefore were very well known to the witnesses and resultantly, their identification was a hokum, on which no reliance can be placed. Referring to various depositions of the witnesses, it was submitted that the appellants were residents of the neighbouring villages and therefore were very well known to the witnesses and resultantly, their identification was a hokum, on which no reliance can be placed. Next it was argued that the appellants were detained in the police lock-up in district Meerut only to be shown to the witnesses. Appellants' further submission was that appellants identification was held very belatedly after 35 days, for which no viable explanation was forwarded by the prosecution and therefore, on such belated identification, appellants conviction is unwarranted. Sri Zilani further urged that appellants had no criminal proclivity nor any criminal history and therefore, it is very surreal to cogitate that they will involve themselves in such an incident where even murder had taken place. For the aforesaid reasons, drawing the curtain of the arguments, it was submitted that the appellants appeal be allowed and they be acquitted of the charge and be set at liberty. 19. Submitting to the contrary, it was stated by Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned AGA that all the fact witnesses were present at the scene of the incident and their presence could not be improbabalised by the defence and these fact witnesses had identified the appellants correctly. There are seven good identifications without committing any mistake against the appellants and therefore, their conspicuous participation in the cirme is established convincingly. From the time of arrest appellants were put under veil and their identification parade was got conducted by Sita Ram Singh, Special Executive Magistrate, P.W.6 after taking all precautions and defence had failed to shatter identification proceedings. In fact accused have not challenged the testimony of Sita Ram Singh, Special Executive Magistrate, P.W.6, at all but for a single sentence cross-examination that he had not noted in the identification memo that in what round witnesses had identified the accused. Testimony of P.W.6 establishes prosecution version beyond doubt. No cross-examination of the fact witnesses was done to discredit their testimonies of locating and identifying the dacoits in torches and other lights generated during the incident so much so that existence of torches and other available lights also remained unchallenged. Testimony of P.W.6 establishes prosecution version beyond doubt. No cross-examination of the fact witnesses was done to discredit their testimonies of locating and identifying the dacoits in torches and other lights generated during the incident so much so that existence of torches and other available lights also remained unchallenged. Patiya Singh P.W.1, Jai Singh P.W.2 and Veg Raj P.W.3 were not questioned to discredit them and to demolish their narration about the happening of the incident, identification of the dacoits and therefore, the prosecution case was established unambiguously to the hilt and hence depositions of fact witnesses cannot be discarded to absolve the appellants of the crime. It was further submitted that the I.O. should have worked out the case properly and faithfully but because he had failed to discharge his duties and pin point other participant dacoits, is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story and involvement of the appellants in the incident. It was next submitted that no close relative will spare the real assailants and implicate innocent persons in a case of dacoity where the brother/father was murdered. Prompt lodging of FIR and list of looted articles etc. have also not been challenged by the appellants and entire cross-examination by the defence centred around the plea of appellant being residents of close vicinity were very well known to them but all the P.Ws thwarted this misdirected feat and therefore, there is no alternative except to dismiss the appeal and affirm appellants conviction and sentence. 20. I have considered the entire prosecution case and evidences in the light of various arguments advanced by both the sides and have critically examined the evidences on record. 21. Perusal of the record and the arguments advanced, reveal that happening of the incident its date and time are not disputed and, therefore, so far as factum of dacoity with murder having been committed in the house of Saran Singh and Sukhbir Singh in village Etmadpur, P.S. Parikshatgarh, District Meerut, is concerned it is an established fact. It is also established that the dacoits were armed with firearms, which they had used in commission of the crime and, hence use of lethal weapons is also proved. Murder of Saran Singh inside his house during the dacoity is also an undisputed fact. 22. It is also established that the dacoits were armed with firearms, which they had used in commission of the crime and, hence use of lethal weapons is also proved. Murder of Saran Singh inside his house during the dacoity is also an undisputed fact. 22. Beside above uncontroverted facts it is also established that the incident is alleged to have occurred on the intervening night between 21/22.7.79 at 1 A.M. and report regarding the same was lodged at 7.30 A.M. at P.S. Parikshitgarh at a distance of six Kms. as was deposed by P.W.1 and P.W. 9. Thus, there was absolutely no delay in lodging of the FIR. Defence had not even suggested to P.W.1 and P.W. 9 that they had prepared the FIR ante timed or had fabricated it. P.W. 1 was not tested for lodging of the FIR ante timed or ante dated and it transpires that the defence had accepted registration of FIR at the time and date alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, prosecution version as was contained in the FIR, Ext. Ka-1, seems to be true narration about the incident. Prosecution, therefore, had conclusively established that a dacoity with murder incident did take place at the house of informant's brothers in which none of his brother was shot dead. The only question, which now remains to be decided is as to whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime and for identifying them whether there was sufficient light and opportunity for the witnesses or not? 23. Vetting documentary and oral evidences from that angle, it is revealed that so far as three fact witnesses Patiya (P.W. 1), Jai Singh (P.W. 2) and Veg Raj (P.W. 3) are concerned, their presence at the spot is very natural and they being eye witnesses of the incident cannot be doubted at all. They were all the residents of the same village. Patiya informant and Jai Singh, P.W.2 were the brother and son of the deceased and it was at their house that the dacoity was committed. Their presence at their house in the dead hour of night is most natural and probable which cannot be doubted. So far as Veg Raj, P.W.3 is concerned, defence has not been able to dislodge his testimony of being an eye witness of the incident. Their presence at their house in the dead hour of night is most natural and probable which cannot be doubted. So far as Veg Raj, P.W.3 is concerned, defence has not been able to dislodge his testimony of being an eye witness of the incident. He is a barber by caste and was candid enough in admitting that his brother worked as a barber at the house of Jai Singh and Sukhbir Singh. He has given a correct narration about the incident and has corroborated his earlier two predecessor witnesses. Appellants' counsel although referred his various depositions but they failed to castigate it to disprove his presence at the incident scene during its happening. In such a view, so far as presence of three fact witnesses are concerned, it is established on the record conclusively and convincingly. These witnesses had sufficient opportunity to identify the dacoits as, according to the prosecution allegations dacoity was committed for a sufficiently long time of one and half hours which fact has also not been challenged by the defence. Defence has not at all challenged that during commission of the crime, miscreants had veiled their faces. None of the fact witness was questioned on the aspect of their inability to identify the miscreants and, consequently there is no other scope but to opine that during commission of the dacoity, all the miscreants who where bare faced, could have been identified by the fact witnesses. For their attires, physic and other aspects, weapons etc. none of the three fact witnesses, P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, were challenged by the defence and on all the above scores prosecution story remains uncontroverted. Defence has not at all cared to test the veracity of the fact witnesses on these aspects and, therefore, neither informant nor two of his corroborative witnesses can be discarded on those scores. Without giving opportunity, no opinion can be drawn against these witnesses regarding factual aspects of happening of the incident. Since, the defence had failed to challenge witnesses on those aspects, a contrary view than that of the trial Court cannot be taken. Sufficient opportunity for identification for sufficiently long period of time had a forceful bearing on the identification of the appellants by these witnesses and it seems that so many identification of the appellants were facilitated because of aforesaid reasons. 24. Sufficient opportunity for identification for sufficiently long period of time had a forceful bearing on the identification of the appellants by these witnesses and it seems that so many identification of the appellants were facilitated because of aforesaid reasons. 24. Turning towards the source of light as was available during the incident, it was specific case of the prosecution from its inception that the occurrence was witnessed in the light of torches and the light emanating from the tube well and the lantern. When P.W. 1 was cross examined by the defence, he stood fast to the test of his cross examination on the said aspect and did not budge at all. In spite of very searching, lengthy and tiring cross examination, defence had not been able to dislodge the said fact. Accused had engaged different counsel who had tested P.W. 1 at various stages but were unsuccessful in bringing on record any damaging statement, which can even remotely suggest that the version deposed by him regarding existence of above source of lights during the incident and locating of the dacoits in the flashing of torches were not the correct version. P.W. 1, has been supported convincingly and authentically by rest of the two fact witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, whose presence at the spot is also not in doubt. Defence, while testing the veracity of these witnesses also failed to elicit any favourable statement from them. P.W. 2 went on to depose that he had flashed torches from his house and the docaits fired when the torches were being flashed. Defence had questioned this witness in respect of burning of lantern to which he had replied that the same was alighted every day and it was being hung with a beam. He had further deposed that while going to the bed, the lantern light flame was not made dim. So far as P.W.3 is concerned, defence has not questioned him on the existence of lights at all and therefore, his testimony cannot be castigated for the contention that there was no sufficient light for the witnesses to identify the dacoits during the incident. Thus existence of sufficient light at the spot remains an unchallenged fact. 25. So far as P.W.3 is concerned, defence has not questioned him on the existence of lights at all and therefore, his testimony cannot be castigated for the contention that there was no sufficient light for the witnesses to identify the dacoits during the incident. Thus existence of sufficient light at the spot remains an unchallenged fact. 25. P.W.6, who got conducted the identification parade of the appellants categorically testified that witnesses Patiya Singh P.W.1, Sukhbir Singh, Jay Singh P.W.2, Smt. Laxmi, Veg Raj P.W.3, Daya Chandra, Devi had correctly identified all the appellant without committing any mistake and this makes seven good identifications against them. Initially, the identification seemed to be too good to be believed but, defence has not challenged it at all and therefore, it has to be accepted as it is and there is no scope for this Court but to hold that too good identifications were infact, the correct identifications. P.W.6 was never questioned on the various precautionary steps to be taken during test identification proceedings. He had categorically stated that all necessary precautionary steps required to be taken during identification proceedings, were observed by him. Consequently, from the testimony of P.W.6, Special Executive Magistrate, who had no enimous against the appellants, it is proved beyond all doubt that identification of the appellants by the witnesses was authentic, confidence inspiring and creditworthy. 26. From the depositions of two Investigating Officers it is evident that defence has not been able to bring on record any damaging statement, which may caste slightest doubt in fair and impartial conducting of the same. At this stage, I would like to advert to the submission of Sri Zilani that but for the appellants no other dacoits could be identified by the Investigating Officers, it is pointed out that the same is a latches on the part of the Investigating Officer. Because the Investigating Officers were not faithful and duty conscious is no reason to disbelieve the three fact witnesses, who had sufficient opportunity to identify the dacoits during the incident and had correctly identified them in the test identification parade. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to our criminal jurisprudence. Because the Investigating Officers were not faithful and duty conscious is no reason to disbelieve the three fact witnesses, who had sufficient opportunity to identify the dacoits during the incident and had correctly identified them in the test identification parade. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to our criminal jurisprudence. Investigating Officers would have done well to bring other dacoits also to books but their lethargic attitude, which is deplorable, is no reason to discredit and discard the confidence inspiring testimonies of the three fact witnesses and identifications done by them. As has already been stated earlier that defence had centered around cross-examinations only on one aspect that the witnesses were known to the dacoits and it had completely eschewed testing their varicity on other aspects of the case. 27. On the fact of knowing the dacoits from before, all the fact witnesses have categorically denied the said defence suggestion. Time and again same question were put to the witnesses but each time only one answer echoed that they had not known the accused from before the incident. Appellants in their defence have not been able to bring on record any evidence, which, even on preponderance of probability, can indicate that the appellants could have been known to the witnesses. Further, no grievance was raised by the appellants at any point of time that they were shown to the witnesses in the police lock-up when they were being taken to be lodged in jail or after their arrest, when they were confined in penitentiary of police station Parikchitgarh. Defence has not been able to discredit the testimony of Investigating officers or the constables as well as fact witnesses on this aspect. What is most alarming is that when the fact witnesses were in the witness box, they were not at all questioned on the aforesaid aspect. The entire argument by the appellants' counsel on the said score seems to be totally misdirected, against the merits of evidences on record. Unless an opportunity is afforded to the fact witnesses and they are specifically questioned as to whether they were called and were shown the accused appellants, no adverse inference can be drawn against them. None of the fact witnesses had any motive to implicate the appellants in a dacoity with murder case without any rhyme or reason. Unless an opportunity is afforded to the fact witnesses and they are specifically questioned as to whether they were called and were shown the accused appellants, no adverse inference can be drawn against them. None of the fact witnesses had any motive to implicate the appellants in a dacoity with murder case without any rhyme or reason. They are totally independent witnesses, who had no grouse to implicate the appellants and therefore, it can be safely concluded that they had no reason to feign a story and implicate the appellants. 28. No enmity worth accepting has been brought on record by the appellants to show that the police was interested in nailing them and thus, on an overall examination of the entire evidences, facts and circumstances, it transpires that the guilt of the appellants has been established convincingly and conclusively by the prosecution regarding their involvement in the dacoity with murder crime. 29. At this juncture, turning to another aspect that the identification of the appellants was conducted after the incident with much delay, I am of the view that the said argument is also meritless. The incident occurred on 21/22.7.1979 and appellants were apprehended for offences under Sections 399/402 IPC in the night between 8/9.10.1979 and they were put under veil (baparda) a GD entry in respect of their arrest is Ext. Ka-15, which has been proved by the Ist Investigating Officer P.W.8 Napal Singh. They were put in police lock-up and on the morning of 9.10.1979 through constables Babu Ram, Mukhtiar Singh, Shishu Pal Singh P.W.10 they were sent to be lodged in district jail, Meerut. Copy of GD entry in that respect, Ext. Ka-16, has been proved by P.W.9 Madan Pal. From the evidence of P.W.6 and test identification memo dated 15.11.1979, it is established that identification of the accused was conducted on the said date. This makes the identification parade conducted within 35 days. As noted earlier, Special Executive Magistrate P.W.6 was not questioned that the test identification parade was got intentionally delayed. P.W.8 Ist Investigating Officer was also not questioned at all on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. If the accused wanted to take advantage of the delayed identification, they should have cross-examined the Investigating Officers on the aforesaid aspect. As noted earlier, Special Executive Magistrate P.W.6 was not questioned that the test identification parade was got intentionally delayed. P.W.8 Ist Investigating Officer was also not questioned at all on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. If the accused wanted to take advantage of the delayed identification, they should have cross-examined the Investigating Officers on the aforesaid aspect. Once the appellants had failed to challenge their belated identification, as was argued learned AGA, I am of the view that no capital can be made of it and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. III Investigating Officer P.W.7 S.I. Bhanu Pratap Singh was also not questioned at all on the aforesaid aspect. In such a view, the criticism levelled by the appellants counsel on delayed identification is not appealing and is hereby repelled. The view of the Apex Court in Soni Vs. State of U.P., 1982 (3) SCC 370 , therefore, does not come to the rescue of the appellants. 30. On an over all assessment of evidences, facts and circumstances of the appeal, I do not find any merit in it and consequently both the appeals, Criminal Appeal No.2/1981 preferred by Iqbal, Kishnu and Khurshed and Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1981 preferred by Kirpa stands dismissed. Appellants conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judged through impugned judgment and order in both the appeals are hereby affirmed. All the appellants are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled. Trial Court is directed to take them in custody and lodged them in jail to serve out remaining part of their sentences. Both the appeals are dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial Judge forthwith for further action at it's end Appeal dismissed. _