JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) The three appellants by the impugned judgment dated 05th of April, 1989 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 21/83, 22/83, 23/83 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section-396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as set out by the informant, PW-17 Bhumi Mehta @ Bhubneshwari Mehta, recorded at 9:30 am on 06.05.1981 is that in the previous night i.e. in the night of 5/6.05.1981 while he along with his two sons Jaglal Mehta and Upendra Mehta were sleeping on a Chowki at his Darwaza, he was awakened by the flash of torch light and when he had asked about the identity of the person flashing torch light on his face, he had received an abusive reply on account of which he alongwith his sons had woken up and remained sitting on the Chowki. The informant claims that six persons, two of them armed with guns and rest four armed with bows and arrows kept standing in front of him and threatening that if he (informant) would buzz from his place he would be done to death. The informant has also given detailed description of such persons by their apparels and physical features and had stated that some of them were also having pagdi (turban) on their heads. The informant had claimed that while six of the dacoits had remained standing in front of him and rest of them had entered in his house as also in the adjacent house of his brother Babuji Mehta P.W.12 and had committed the act of loot paat in course of which one of the member of the dacoit had also fired on his son Jaglal Mehta hitting him near his left eye and resulting into his instant death at the spot. As with regard to the said deceased son, the informant had claimed that he was a wrestler and did not care for the miscreants. As with regard to the said deceased son, the informant had claimed that he was a wrestler and did not care for the miscreants. The description of dacoity followed by murder of his son in course of dacoity with other details of the looted property by the informant in the ferdbeyan, however, remained confined against unknown persons, inasmuch as, no one was named in ferdbayan given to police in his house where in the informant on the basis of his assessment at best had claimed to have only identified some of the members of dacoits by face. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned fard beyan of PW-17 (Bhumi Mehta), the informant, Singeshwar P. S. Case No. 55(5)81 dated 06.05.1981 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section-396 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons and the police after investigation as also arresting the suspected persons and having put them to T.I Parade (Test Identification Parade) had ultimately submitted its chargesheet against five persons including these three appellants as also Bilaiya Mian and Bhumi Mehta, whereafter the case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Session by different orders dated 01.08.1983, 16.08.1983, 18.08.1983 and 02.09.1983. The trial Court thereafter having amalgamated all the four Sessions Trial No. 21, 23, 23 and 24 all of the year 1983 and having framed charge under Section 396 I.P.C. against five persons including the appellants had conducted the trial and while it had acquitted two of the co-accused persons namely Bhumi Mehta and Bilaiya Mian, these three appellants were convicted under Section 396 I.P.C. sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment under appeal. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has raised the following issues:- (i) The prosecution having already known about the so called involvement of all these appellants through the raids committed by the I.O on the next date of the lodging of the First Information Report subsequent identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses in course of T.I Parade looses its significance. (ii) The informant and his brother Babuji Mehta having themselves admitted in their evidence that they had no source of identification of their own, the identification claimed by them in the torch light of the accused persons is not only absurd but infact also wholly unbelievable. (iii) The identification of appellant no. 3, Kamleshwari Mushar by PW-6 in T.I. parade held after two years would not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, not only his evidence is inconsistent but he had not even claimed such identification of any dacoit in course of dacoity in his statement to police. (iv) As with regard to identification by PW-12, the father of PW-6 of all the appellants it has been stated that when in his cross-examination he had admitted to have been confined to a particular place by dacoits having painted face or wearing Pagadi his claim for identifying all the three appellants seems to be unbelievable specially when none of them were said to have been identified in T.I. parade by him with their faces painted or having pagdi or topi on their head. (v) The identification of appellant no. 3 Kamleshwari Yadav even otherwise does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, the magistrate who had conducted such T.I Parade has not been examined by the prosecution. (vi) The evidence of informant, PW-17, either with regard to the manner of occurrence in question or with regard to identification does not inspire confidence specially because in his cross-examination he is found to be wholly inconsistent on both the aspects. (vii) The other identifying witness, PW-13 (Jai Narayan Mehta @ Teji Lal Mehta) being an outsider and having no opportunity to be present in the dead of the night either in the house of PW-17 (Bhumi Mehta) or PW-12 (Babuji Mehta), his identification of the appellants in T.I. parade is also doubtful. 5. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has submitted that:- (i) Merely because the police on suspicion had reached and raided the house of the appellants and other accused persons in view of the confidential information received in course of investigation that would not vitiate the identification of the appellants in the T.I. Parade held soon after their arrest. (ii) PW-12 (Babuji Mehta) and PW-17 (Bhumi Mehta) are the most natural witnesses, inasmuch as, their house was subjected to dacoity in course of which the murder of the son of PW-17(Bhumi Mehta) had taken place and therefore, identification by them in course of T.I Parade of the appellants soon after their arrest in all fairness would inspire confidence to the prosecution case. (iii) As with regard to the plea of belated T.I Parade in case of Kamleshwari Mushar, it has been explained that as a matter of fact he had remained absconding and was arrested only on 11.04.1983 whereafter his T.I Parade was held at the shortest possible time on 26.04.1983 and thus no delay has been said to have been caused in holding such T.I Parade. (iv) Non examination of the magistrate holding the T.I Parade on 26.04.1983 in any event will not affect the prosecution case, inasmuch as, appellant no. 3, Kamleshwari Mushar in his statement under Section-313 Cr.P.C had not denied holding of his T.I Parade or his being identified in the same and as such when the report of T.I Parade was already proved by PW-24 (Bindeshwari Yadav) no prejudice, can be said to have been caused to him on account of non-examination of Sri S.N Mishra the magistrate holding the T.I Parade. (v) There may be some sort of embellishment in the evidence of PW-6(Raja Ram Mehta) son of PW-12 (Babuji Mehta) whose house was subjected to dacoity but by and large his evidence either on the point of occurrence or on the point of causing death of Jaglal Mahto the son of PW-17 in course of dacoity having remained consistent, the identification made by him of Kamleshwari Mushar in course of T.I Parade cannot be brushed aside. Specially when he was also identified by one more witness, PW12 the father of PW6 and (vi) Identification of even a single witness in case under Section-396 IPC has to be viewed seriously, inasmuch as, the test of such identification by one person in a case registered under Section-395 IPC cannot be made applicable and therefore, when all the three appellants have been identified by two or more witnesses in course of T.I Parade, their conviction and sentence would require no interference by this Court. 6. 6. Before we devle into the merit of the aforementioned rival submissions, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the evidence led by the prosecution. The prosecution in all has examined 24 witnesses out of whom PW-3 (Vasudeo Ram) and PW-22 (R.N Thakur) are the two magistrates who had conducted the T.I Parade as with regard to identification of appellant Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav. PW-2 (Dr. B.N. Mishra) is the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem on the person of the deceased Jaglal Mahto, including PW-17(Bhumi Mehta). The other material witnesses for our consideration is PW-6 (Raja Ram Mehta) and PW-12 his father Babuji Mehta, PW-13 (Jai Narayan Mehta @ Teji Lal Mehta) and PW-17 (Bhumi Mehta @ Bhubneshwari Mehta), the informant, inasmuch as, they had identified one or the other appellants in course of T.I Parade. The prosecution has also examined two Investigation officers (I.O.) namely PW-20(Raj Kishore Pandey) and PW-21(Sudhir Kumar Sinku). 7. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, the prosecution has also proved as many as 10 exhibits out of which Exhibit-1 is the formal F.I.R, Exhibit-2 is the post mortem report, Exhibit-3 series is the T.I Chart, Exhibit-4 is the inquest report, Exhibit-5 is the Seizure list, Exhibit-6 is the signature of the informant on fard beyan, Exhibit-7 is the injury report, Exhibit-8 is the fard beyan, Exhibit-9 is the injury slip and Exhibit-10 is the list of exhibited articles. 8. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document, but from the trend of their cross-examination as also their stand taken in course of examination under Section-313 Cr.P.C, the plea of their false implication is based on of the appellant being earlier acquainted to prosecution witnesses on account of being villagers of adjoining area. 9. There would be no difficulty for this Court in accepting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that even if the factum of dacoity and the murder of the son of the informant in course of dacoity is admitted and proved that by itself cannot lead to an irresistible inference also with regard to participation of the appellants in the said occurrence. Thus identification of the appellants is the only crucial issue in the present case inasmuch as from the evidence on record, there can be no two opinion that an occurrence of dacoity had taken place both in the houses of PW-12(Babuji Mehta) and PW-17(Bhumi Mehta) which are adjacent to each other and in course of such dacoity Jaglal the son of informant was killed. The prosecution in fact had also proceeded on a very clear basis that the informant and other witnesses had not identified any of the members of the dacoits and therefore, once it was informed to the police that an occurrence leading to not only dacoity but also a murder in course of dacoity had taken place, if the police had immediately rolled into action and on the basis of its confidential information had also raided the house of the appellants and other accused persons and arrested some of them, that by itself cannot be said to have affected the prosecution case in any manner, inasmuch as, it was a part of the investigating process to find out the real culprit. In that view of the matter, when appellant no. 1, Jagdish Garheri appellant no. 2, Upendra Yadav were arrested soon after the occurrence and put on T.I. parade immediately, it cannot be said that their identification in course of such T.I. parade is bad only because the police officer on suspicion had raided their house and had arrested. 10. The identification of appellant Jagdish Garheri by PW-12 (Babuji Mehta), PW-13(Jai Narayan Mehta) and PW-17(Bhum Mehta) in the T.I Parade and appellant no. 2, Upendra Yadav by PW-12 and PW-17 in course of such T.I Parade, has been by two of such persons namely, PW-12 and PW-17, who are natural witnesses because dacoity had taken place in their house. They have remained almost consistent on the issue of identification. 11. PW-12 in his evidence in Court has also stated that in course of such dacoity he too had sustained injuries on his person, a fact which has also been supported in the evidence of Doctor, PW-19 who had found as many as four injuries on his person. They have remained almost consistent on the issue of identification. 11. PW-12 in his evidence in Court has also stated that in course of such dacoity he too had sustained injuries on his person, a fact which has also been supported in the evidence of Doctor, PW-19 who had found as many as four injuries on his person. PW-12 therefore, when he has also stated in his evidence that he had identified the dacoits in course of T.I. Parade and has remained completely unshaken even in his cross-examination by reaffirming that he had identified only those dacoits who had encircled him and had not allowed him to move. The criticism about his identification and in fact identification made by PW-17 of the appellants only on the ground that the night was dark and there was no means of identification for the prosecution party gets itself explained from the cross-examination of PW-12(Babuji Mehta) as also PW-17(Bhumi Mehta), wherein, it has come that the miscreants, a number of dacoits were having torch in their hands and were flashing it consistently in course of dacoity extending to considerable length of time in which two houses were made subject matter of dacoity in addition to killing up Jaglal in course of dacoity. Such story of identification in the torch light of miscreants in fact has also its support from the fard beyan itself where the informant has categorically stated about the miscreants carrying torch in their hands and flashing it time and again. The evidence of PW-12 again would inspire confidence, inasmuch as, even when he was subjected to no uncertain end as with regard to the manner of conducting T.I Parade he had denied all such suggestion and had stated that there was no tutoring to him by any person much less by the police. 12. The only infirmity in the evidence of PW-12 as with regard to identification of another co-accused Bhumi Yadavhad already ennured to his benefit, inasmuch as, the trial Court had already acquitted Bhumi Yadav on account of his being known to the prosecution party a fact which was also admitted by PW-12 in paragraph no. 12 of his cross examination along with other prosecution witnesses. No such infirmity however in the identification of appellant no. 12 of his cross examination along with other prosecution witnesses. No such infirmity however in the identification of appellant no. 1 and 2 can be found from the evidence of PW12 and as such identification of appellant Jagdish Garheri and appellant Upendra Yadav by this witness, PW-12 seems to be above board keeping in view that they were identified in T.I. parade held within a four days of occurrence. 13. Almost similar is the evidence of PW-17, the informant on the point of identification of appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav who also has given the details not only of the occurrence but also of the manner of identification. The house of PW-17 was subjected to dacoity and his son Jaglal was killed in course of such dacoity. In his evidence he has very clearly stated that he could identify only such person whose faces were not painted and amongst them he had identified appellant Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav in course of T.I Parade. In his cross-examination when he was subjected to the issue of identification, he had clearly stated that dacoits were consistently flashing torch lights all round the area in his house and as such six others who were surrounding him unpainted and unpounded face were identified by him. As a matter of fact, the only inconsistency in the evidence of PW-17 is as with regard to identification of co-accused Bilaiya Mian and Bhumi Yadav which has already been correctly appreciated by the trial Court itself while acquitting them of their charge. The evidence of PW-17 therefore so far it relates to identification of appellant Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav is also consistent. 14. It is true that appellant Jagdish Garheri was also identified by PW-13 in addition to PW-12 and PW-17 in the T.I Parade but even if the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted that PW-13 is outsider and his presence at the time of occurrence was not possible, identification of these two appellants by PW-12 and PW-17 cannot be questioned. It has to be noted that the two magistrates before whom the T.I Parade was conducted namely PW-3 and PW-2 have also given description while proving T.I Parade and nothing could be taken away from them so as to discredit their evidence or the manner of conducting T.I Parade by them. 15. It has to be noted that the two magistrates before whom the T.I Parade was conducted namely PW-3 and PW-2 have also given description while proving T.I Parade and nothing could be taken away from them so as to discredit their evidence or the manner of conducting T.I Parade by them. 15. As a matter of fact appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav were put this specific question under Section-313 Cr.P.C as with regard to their identification in T.I Parade by the witnesses and they did not deny this fact in any manner. The common question put to them was as follows:- iz0&Vh0 vkbZ0 ijsM esa dqN lkf{k;ksa us vkidks mDr MdSrh esa Hkkx ysus okyksa esa vki Hkh Fks ;g dg dj igpkuk FkkA The answer to this common question by appellant Upendra Yadav was as follows:- m0 & esjk ?kj vksj xokgksa dk ?kj ,d gh txg gS vr% igpku djuk dksbZ eqf’dy ugha FkkA Similarly, appellant Jagdish Garheri had answered the aforesaid same question by stating that:- m0 & rjfo gkV esa tkrk vkrk jgrk FkkA blh ls igpkuk gSA 16. It therefore, becomes clear from the stand taken by the two appellants that they had admitted their identification in T.I Parade whereafter they had given no explanation except their being resident of neighbouring village. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the village of appellant Upendra Yadav being Sinhinan was in or around the boundary of village Tarari, the village of the informant and therefore, his plea under Section-313 Cr.P.C that he happened to be resident of the same place as that of the witnesses could not be proved by them by any evidence. Similarly Jagdish Garheri being resident of village Bhawanipur when he has claimed that he was frequently going to Tarari hat i.e. the village of the informant (PW17) and PW12 that by itself would after no explanation as to the reason of his identification by PW-12 and PW-17, inasmuch as, it has not been explained as to the possibility of these two witnesses knowing the appellant Jagdish Garheri since before. As a matter of fact, nothing has been elicited in this regard from PW-20 and PW-21 the two I.Os. as with regard to the village of appellant Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav being in the vicinity much less in the boundary of the place of occurrence being the village Tarari. 17. As a matter of fact, nothing has been elicited in this regard from PW-20 and PW-21 the two I.Os. as with regard to the village of appellant Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav being in the vicinity much less in the boundary of the place of occurrence being the village Tarari. 17. The scope and prospect of Section-313 Cr.P.C as with regard to the plea of accused has a sanguine purpose, in which if the accused takes a plea which is well within his knowledge, the onus in view of Section 106 Evidence Act lies on him to prove such fact. Recently, the Apex Court while examining the scope of Section-313 Cr.P.C had in the case of Ram Naresh & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2012 Cr.L.J 1898 had held as follows:- “It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C is upon the Court. One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of the Cr.P.C is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follows. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under section 313, Cr.P.C., insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law.” 18. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follows. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under section 313, Cr.P.C., insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law.” 18. In the present case when the issue of identification of the two appellants i.e Jagdish Garheri and Upendra yadav in T.I Parade had been sought to be proved beyond pale of any doubt by the prosecution on the basis of evidence of PW-12(Babuji Mehta) and PW-17 (Bhumi Mehta) read with evidence of PW-2(Dr.B.N Mishra) and PW-22 (R.N. Thakur) the two magistrate conducting T.I. parade, if they (appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav) had taken the plea of their being known or acquainted earlier to PW12 and PW17 on account of their being resident of adjacent villages, it was for them to establish this aspect but neither in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nor by leading any further evidence in defence this fact has been established and therefore, their statement under Section-313 Cr.P.C at least can be used to the extent for establishing their identification in course of T.I Parade. 19. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Asharfi and another vs The State reported in AIR 1961 Allahabd 153 and in particular on paragraph no. 34 thereof is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, in the facts of that case it was found that accused was already known to the identifier. It was in this context, that their lordship had also given some sort of general impression about identification of a witness by neighbouring villager by drawing a limit of two miles or more. Here in the present case neither there is any evidence on record to show that appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav were known to PW-12 and PW-17 nor there is any material to show that village Tarari is within the radius of two miles of the village of the appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav. Thus the facts of the case of Asharfi(supra) being also altogether distinguishable, this Court would find the same can not be made applicable for disbelieving the identification of appellants. 20. Thus the facts of the case of Asharfi(supra) being also altogether distinguishable, this Court would find the same can not be made applicable for disbelieving the identification of appellants. 20. It would be necessary for us to take into account the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munni Singh & Ors vs State of Bihar, reported in 1993 Suppl(1) SCC 395 on which also reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant by referring to paragraph no.8 thereof. From reading of paragraph no. 8 as with regard to means of identification it can be safely found that there was a clear finding of the Apex Court as with regard to previous enmity and panchayati taking place whereafter the identification of accused in torch light flash by the prosecution witnesses was doubted on the ground that flash of torch was instantaneously with numerous flash by dacoits and it was like a day light. The Apex Court had disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and PW-11 of the case because in spell of seconds such identification in torch light was not possible and had held that the story of 25 to 30 dacoits in number by letting them switch on their torches off and on for identifying the accused persons in seconds was not possible. It would thus be clear that what was held in the facts of the case was based on the appreciation of Munni Singh’s evidence but in the present case from evidence of PW-12 and PW-17 as has been noted above it becomes clear that these two persons were not allowed to move from the respective place and the dacoits had kept on committing the dacoity in torch light which was being used indiscriminately all over the place of occurrence by the dacoits themselves. In that view of the matter, it cannot be a case of identification of dacoits in torch light by the witnesses in spell of seconds as was found by the Apex court in the case of Munni Singh (supra). 21. In view of the aforementioned discussion we have no difficulty in upholding the conviction of appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav and therefore, the appeals as with regard to conviction and sentence must fail. 22. 21. In view of the aforementioned discussion we have no difficulty in upholding the conviction of appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav and therefore, the appeals as with regard to conviction and sentence must fail. 22. Coming now to the case of appellant Kamleshwari Mushar, this court would find that he had not been identified by the two witnesses namely, PW-6(Raja Ram Mehta) and PW-12(Babuji Mehta). It has to be noted that PW-17, the informant has not identified him (Kamleshwari Mushar). Additionally, the evidence of PW-6 would not inspire confidence specially when it is found that in his earliest version to the police he had denied to have identified any dacoit. That apart PW-6 in his examination-in-chief has himself stated that the dacoits had entered into his house while he was sleeping and on hulla when he woke, he had immediately ran away from his house. He, however, had given no inkling as to the place he had run away and in his cross-examination he has been further exposed when he has stated that he was in bungla and the dacoits were in the baithka. The question therefore would be if he had ran away from his house how can he either remain to bungla or baithka and therefore, when he had also not stated the fact of identification of dacoits to the police at the earliest point of time, his evidence would not inspire confidence. 23. It has to be kept in mind that accused Kamleshwari Mushar was apprehended on 11.04.1983 i.e. almost after two years of the occurrence and was put to T.I Parade on 26.04.1983. Such delayed T.I Parade and also non examination of the magistrate conducting the T.I Parade coupled with the fact that one of his identifying witness was PW-6 who has only identified this appellant (Kamleshwari Mushar) only would go to show that it was possible for the prosecution party to know about accused Kamleshwari Mushar in the period of two years of the occurrence and as such his non-identification by the informant whose house was subjected to dacoity and whose son was killed in course of such dacoity would lead to irrestible conclusion that identification of appellant Kamleshwari Mushar is not beyond pale of doubt. In such a situation Kamleshwari Mushar is entitled to acquittal by way of benefit of doubt. In such a situation Kamleshwari Mushar is entitled to acquittal by way of benefit of doubt. Consequently the conviction and sentence of appellant Kamleshwari Mushar is set aside and since he is on bail, he would also stand discharged of the liability of his bail bonds. 24. Subject to the aforementioned modification in the impugned judgment, this appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of Appellants Jagdish Garheri and Upendra Yadav are cancelled and they are directed to surrender immediately for serving out rest of their sentence.