JUDGMENT 1. - This DB Cr. Appeal under Section 374 sub-clause (2) Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 6/2004 whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- For offence under Section 302/34 IPC to L.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine three months additional S.I. Under Section 325/34 IPC to 3 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 15 days additional S.I. For offence under Section 323 IPC to 6 months S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the basis of Parchabayan (Ex. P/35) of Munshiram S/o Bherulal recorded at Government Hospital, Indragarh, a First Information Report No. 106/2001 was registered for offences under Section 302 and 307 IPC. It was alleged in the Parchabayan that at about 8.00 AM, 6-7 persons including Munshiram and others were grazing their camels in the forest of Papda and also preparing food, at that time three persons came there, out of whom one person was in Khaki cloths, second was wearing Khaki shirt and dhoti and third was in white cloths. All the three persons have told them to go with them otherwise they would be killed. One person was armed with a gun. On their threatening, Badri Rebari, Sohan Rebari, Mohan Rebari, Buddha Rebari and Shyoji Rebari all went with them. At some distant place 5-6 persons were also sitting. They started beating them and as a result sustained injuries. Buddha Rebari and Shyoji Rebari succumbed to the injuries on the spot and others were shifted to the Indragarh hospital. 3. After investigation charge sheet was filed against co-accused persons. The present appellant was shown to be a absconder and investigation was kept pending against the present appellant under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After the arrest of the present appellant, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against appellant along with other co-accused Mohan, Ram Prasad and Ramesh. The present appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 148, 302, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 whereas the co-accused Ramesh, Mohanlal and Ramprasad were discharged by the competent court. The present appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 148, 302, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 whereas the co-accused Ramesh, Mohanlal and Ramprasad were discharged by the competent court. Against other accused persons, Ramdhan etc., the trial was going on and on 26.4.2005, the sessions trial against the present appellant and Ramdhan etc. has been consolidated. To prove the case against the present appellant, Hemant Gautam (PW-1), Munshi (PW-2), Sumer Singh (PW-3), Mohanlal (PW-4), Hemraj (PW-5), Dulharam (PW-6), Sohanlal (PW-7), Badri (PW-8), Badrilal (PW-9), Daulatram (PW-10), Moti (PW-11), Moti S/o Harji (PW-12), Shanker (PW-13), Abdul Jangid (PW-14), Chhotu (PW-15), Chotulal (PW-16), Satyanarain (PW-17), Ghanshyam (PW-18), Bhanwarsingh (PW-19), Omprakash (PW-20), Hanuman (PW-21), Prakashchand (PW-22), Santsingh (PW-23), Sitaram (PW-24), Dr. Virendra Saxena (PW-25) and Babulal (PW-26) have been examined. The present appellant has been examined under Section 313 and in defence, DW/1 Dhanji has been produced. After conclusion of trial, the present appellant is convicted and sentenced as above whereas other co-accused Ramdhan, Ramswaroop, Ganesh, Latoor, Kailash and and Babulal have been acquitted. Hence this appeal. 4. The contention of the present appellant is that he has been implicated falsely. The present appellant has been identified in the court for the first time which is not a sufficient evidence to record the conviction. No identification parade has been conducted qua the present appellant. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded with delay under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The physical appearance of the present appellant is totally different which has been narrated in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2 Munshi and PW-8 Badri have not identified the present appellant in the Court and his other forceful argument is that on the same set of evidence, co-accused Ramdhan etc. have been acquitted and hence the present appellant would be convicted. 5. Per contra, the contention of the prosecution is that the appellant has been identified in the court which is a substantive piece of evidence and there is no legal requirement to conduct test identification parade. have been acquitted and hence the present appellant would be convicted. 5. Per contra, the contention of the prosecution is that the appellant has been identified in the court which is a substantive piece of evidence and there is no legal requirement to conduct test identification parade. PW-4 Mohan Lal, PW-5 Hemraj and PW-7 Sohan Lal who are the injured eye-witnesses have deposed against the present appellant and they have already identified the present appellant in the Court, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned finding and his further contention is that co-accused has been acquitted on the strength of the evidence which has been adduced against them and evidence in another case cannot be looked into for consideration and guilt of the present appellant. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 7. The FIR has been lodged on the statement of PW-2 Munshi. He stated in the Court about the over-act of the accused person but he has not identified the present appellant before the Court and instead of present appellant, he has identified the co-accused Ganesh and PW-8 Badri has also not identified the present appellant and he clearly states that he cannot identify the present appellant but at the same time, PW-4 Mohan Lal has stated that third person who was in police uniform and who assaulted us was the present appellant. PW-4 Mohan Lal is also the injured in the incident. PW-7 Sohan Lal, who is also an eye-witness and injured witness has stated that Vishnu, Babu Rebari and Ramu Nai has assaulted them and he has also identified the present appellant and this witness has also testify the incident as narrated in the Parchabayan (Ex.P-35). PW-5 Hemraj is the eye-witness and he has stated that three persons have assaulted the injured and died persons and one was named as Ramu by the chief of the gang and he has also identified the accused appellant in the Court by going near the present appellant. 8. PW-5 Hemraj is the eye-witness and he has stated that three persons have assaulted the injured and died persons and one was named as Ramu by the chief of the gang and he has also identified the accused appellant in the Court by going near the present appellant. 8. Thus, PW-4 Mohan Lal, PW-5 Hemraj and PW-7 Sohan Lal all are eye-witnesses of the incident and they have identified the present appellant before the Court without any hesitation and court below has rightly relied upon the evidence of these witnesses.The contention of the present appellant is that without test identification parade, identification for the first time in the Court is valueless and reliance has been placed on Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 ; Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 1 SCC 700 . Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on Dana Yadav @ Dahu & ors. v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295 ; and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 wherein in Para 58 it has been held as under: "58. Identification Parade is a tool of investigation and is used primarily to strengthen the case of the prosecution on the one hand and to make doubly sure that persons named accused in the case are actually the culprits. The Identification Parade primarily belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in court. Thus, it is only a relevant consideration which may be examined by the court in view of other attendant circumstances and corroborative evidence with reference to the facts of a given case." 9. In view of the above, it is true that identification parade is a tool of investigation and it primarily used to strengthen the investigation. Thus, it is only a relevant consideration which may be examined by the court in view of other attendant circumstances and corroborative evidence with reference to the facts of a given case." 9. In view of the above, it is true that identification parade is a tool of investigation and it primarily used to strengthen the investigation. Here, in the present case, other co-accused persons have been put to identification but as the present appellant was absconding from the proceedings, he could not be put to test identification parade and there is no general rule that test identification parade is a condition precedent to rely on the evidence of a witness in regard to identification of the accused in the Court if a witness is reliable one without any corroboration, his testimony could be relied. Here, in the present case, all the three witnesses mentioned earlier has narrated the incident. As regards the present appellant, they have identified the present appellant without any hesitation. PW-4 Mohan Lal and PW-7 Sohan Lal are also the injured eye-witnesses hence, there is no infirmity in the reasoning of the court below whereby reliance has been placed on the eye-testimony of the witnesses. 10. The other contention of the present appellant is that in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the description of the present appellant has been narrated different as narrated in arrest memo of the present appellant and reliance has been placed on Wakil Singh & ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 . The description of the present appellant is immaterial when the present appellant has been identified by the witnesses in the Court. The description has been narrated only to assist the Investigating Officer to search out the culprit and when the person has been identified by the concerned witnesses, the description is of no use. 11. The other contention of the appellant is that on same set of allegation and evidence, co-accused has been acquitted, hence the present appellant should also be acquitted and reliance has been placed on Balbir v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 285 ; and Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal, 2007 VII AD (S.C.) 122 . 12. The other contention of the appellant is that on same set of allegation and evidence, co-accused has been acquitted, hence the present appellant should also be acquitted and reliance has been placed on Balbir v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 285 ; and Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal, 2007 VII AD (S.C.) 122 . 12. In both the cases (supra), the trial has been conducted along with co-accused and when similarly situated co-accused has been acquitted, the appellant has also been acquitted but here in the present case, the factual scenario is quite different. Here distinct evidence has been recorded as regards to the present appellant and other co-accused persons and in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 422 , it has been categorically held that the Sessions Court should take care that he would confine his judgment in one case only to the evidence adduced in that particular case, hence when evidence has been recorded separately in two cases, the result of one case could not effect the result of the other case and learned Public Prosecutor has relied on Amrik Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 SCC (1) 563 JT wherein in Para 10, it has been held as under: "Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that since Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish and Harbans had been acquitted in the connected case by the Sessions Court and their acquittal was upheld by the High Court, it would not be safe to convict Amrik Singh on the basis of the prosecution evidence which had implicated the acquitted co-accused also and which evidence had not been believed. The argument does not appeal to us. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has never been accepted either as a rule of law or evidence. ... ... ..." 13. The bare reading of the above clearly suggests that if evidence in regard to a particular accused is reliable, then conviction could safely be recorded on the relied evidence. The argument does not appeal to us. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has never been accepted either as a rule of law or evidence. ... ... ..." 13. The bare reading of the above clearly suggests that if evidence in regard to a particular accused is reliable, then conviction could safely be recorded on the relied evidence. Here in the present case, there was no reason before the court below to disbelieve the evidence of PW-4 Mohan Lal, PW-5 Hemraj and PW-7 Sohan Lal and court below has rightly relied upon the evidence of these witnesses and the three witnesses have stated that the present appellant has assaulted them and in the incident Buddha Rebari and Shyoji Rebari have received injuries due to which they succumbed to the death and Sohan Rebari and Mohan Rebari have also received serious injuries. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******