JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. These criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated dated 14.02.2007 & 17.02.2007 respectively, passed by Sri Rai Satish Bahadur, Addl. Judl. Commissioner No.XVIth, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No.442 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.546 of 2004 arising out of Bariyatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No.31 of 2004 dated 06.02.2004 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code and further to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/each and in default of making payment of fine further R.I. for one year. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year. 2. The case of prosecution, as it appears from the fardbeyan of Sitaram Sharma (PW5), recorded on 26.02.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. at Jhigri Tola, in brief, is that between intervening night of 25/26.02.2004 the informant with his family members was making plan to go to their native village on the eve of Holi festival. The informant noticed presence of certain persons near the gate of his house while he had come out from the room for urinating. The informant tried to know the identity of those persons but they threatened him to keep quite and go inside the house. The matter was brought to the notice of other family members where after they also came out from the room and tried to know identity of those persons assembled near the gate. The miscreants disclosed that they had come to search a criminal and they are staff of police station. On some pretext and also on the point of gun the miscreants got the gate opened, entered into the house and committed robbery. The miscreants were four in number and they were armed with pistol, gun etc. In course of commission of robbery Parshuram Sharma was shot dead. After the miscreants left the place of occurrence, alarm was raised which attracted neighboring people to assemble there. The informant and other witnesses disclosed about the incident to neighboring people. The miscreants were four in number and they were armed with pistol, gun etc. In course of commission of robbery Parshuram Sharma was shot dead. After the miscreants left the place of occurrence, alarm was raised which attracted neighboring people to assemble there. The informant and other witnesses disclosed about the incident to neighboring people. The matter was also informed to police, fardbeyan of Sitaram Sharma was recorded and Bariyatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No.31 of 2004 under Section 394 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown miscreants. The investigation was carried out. In course of investigation one of the accused Dharmendra Singh @ Ali along with brother of appellant Mukesh Nayak was apprehended. They confessed their guilt and disclosed name of their associates indulged in the commission of robbery and murder. These two appellants surrendered before the Court. After concluding investigation, chargesheet was filed against them. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No.442 of 2004. Charges under Section 394 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against co-accused Dharmendra Singh @ Ali and appellants were framed on 07.10.2004 and they were put on trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined altogether nine witnesses whereas defence has examined only one witness. The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, at the conclusion of trial, placing relaince on the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as indicated above. Accused Dharmendra Singh @ Ali was not found guilty and he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that Investigating Officer has done perfunctory investigation under the influence of informant party. The physical description of dacoits, as given by the informant and other witnesses, do not tally with the appearance of the appellants. The Investigating Officer to prove his ability, had apprehended the appellants and other accused and to prove their involvement in the alleged robbery, made the witnesses convinced and got the appellants identified in T.I. Parade which was not done in accordance with law. The appellants were taken on police remand on 22.04.2004 and sent back to jail on 23.04.2004 i.e. on the very following day. The appellants were taken on police remand on 22.04.2004 and sent back to jail on 23.04.2004 i.e. on the very following day. The purpose of taking the appellants on police remand and bringing them to the police station was only with an intention to show them to the witnesses so that the witnesses could be able to identify the appellants in T.I. Parade and that is what has happened. PW2 and PW5 have admitted in their deposition that arrest of the appellants was brought to their notice and their names were also disclosed by the I.O. to PW2. The defence witness DW1 has corroborated this fact that the appellants were shown to the witnesses by the police when they were taken on police remand. In this context, learned counsel has also drawn my attention towards the statement of PW7 Santosh Kumar, the Judicial Magistrate who had conducted Test Identification Parade. The appellants were put together as suspect and both the witnesses were directed to identify the culprits. When PW2 Lavkush Sharma identified the appellants, it was being corroborated by PW5 Sitaram Sharma. It is submitted that both the suspects should have been directed to stand in two different queue with the persons of similar personality and the witnesses should have also been directed to appear to part in T.I. Parade one after another. The T.I. Parade should not have been held in presence of both the witnesses at once. The learned Magistrate has deposed that T.I. Parade of both the appellants was conducted one by one but T.I.Parade Chart is only one i.e. Exhibit-2. The manner in which T.I.Parade was conducted does not appear to be genuine and no reliance could be placed on it. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has caused prejudice to them because the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner has failed to put all the circumstances and evidence to the appellants to enable them to answer and give evidence in their defence. The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner has held the appellants guilty mainly on the ground that they were identified in T.I. Parade but no question on the point of T.I.Parade held has been put to any of the appellants though they have raised the point that they were shown to the witnesses at the police station when they were taken on police remand. Judicial Commissioner has held the appellants guilty mainly on the ground that they were identified in T.I. Parade but no question on the point of T.I.Parade held has been put to any of the appellants though they have raised the point that they were shown to the witnesses at the police station when they were taken on police remand. Co-accused Dharmendra Singh @ Ali on whose confessional statement name of these appellants transpired, has been acquitted and therefore, findings of learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner appears erroneous and liable to be set aside. 4. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the argument and submitted that informant PW5 has fully supported the contention made in his fardbeyan. The fardbeyan bears entire detail of the occurrence and that has been corroborated not only by the informant but by other witnesses too. It was a heinous crime in which Parshuram Sharma was shot dead at the time of commission of robbery. The robbery was committed in a planned manner which is apparent from the evidence available on record. The miscreants were armed with deadly weapons like pistol, gun etc. They had pretended themselves to be the persons of police and got the door opened. No sooner the door was opened, they entered into the house and succeeded to give effect to the evil design with which they had come to the place of occurrence. Robbery was committed, the miscreants have looted cash and other articles and fled away. Sarswati Devi PW1, Lavkush Sharma PW2 and Sitaram Sharma PW5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they are the victims too. PW1 Sarswati Devi was so fair that she was trapped under the pretending circumstance. When the miscreants told that they had come to search a criminal and asked her to open the gate to apprehend those criminals, she innocently requested her husband Parshuram Sharma (deceased) to open the door and let them search the house. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that such an innocent witness would never intend to implicate any person falsely. Her statement is natural and appealing. She has explained the incident and the trauma which she had experienced. Lavkush Sharma PW2 happens to be nephew of the deceased. He has fully corroborated the prosecution case, as made by PW5 in his fardbeyan. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that such an innocent witness would never intend to implicate any person falsely. Her statement is natural and appealing. She has explained the incident and the trauma which she had experienced. Lavkush Sharma PW2 happens to be nephew of the deceased. He has fully corroborated the prosecution case, as made by PW5 in his fardbeyan. He did not say that he had seen the appellants at the police station at any point of time, rather he has clearly stated that he was asked to appear as a witness to identify the accused in jail. He followed the instructions and put his presence in jail and identified the appellants disclosing the overt act which they had committed at the time of occurrence. The testimony of PW2 cannot be discarded because the defence could not be able to bring on record the reasons for false implication. Sitaram Sharma PW5 has fully corroborated the contention made in the fardbeyan and supported the T.I.Parade held. He has stated that he had identified the appellants in jail and he also identified the appellants in court during trial. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava PW3, Ramprit Singh PW4 and Balram Singh PW6 are the neighbours. PW3 and PW4 have given hearsay account of the occurrence whereas PW6, for some reason or the other, did not stick to his earlier statement given to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Dr. C.S. Prasad PW8 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Parshuram Sharma and he had noticed fire arm injury on the person of the deceased and that was the reason behind his death. Suresh Prasad Srivastava PW9 has done commendable job, he apprehended co-accused and after interrogation recorded his confessional statement. Since the name of these appellants was appearing in the confessional statement of co-accused Dharmendra Singh @ Ali, steps were taken to arrest the appellants but they got themselves surrendered before the Court. Necessary investigation required in the case of robbery and murder was correctly done. The appellants were put on T.I. Parade and after collecting sufficient materials they were charge sheeted. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully examined the case record, perused the evidence and documents available. Necessary investigation required in the case of robbery and murder was correctly done. The appellants were put on T.I. Parade and after collecting sufficient materials they were charge sheeted. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully examined the case record, perused the evidence and documents available. Although prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW1, 2 and 5 who are victims of the incident and eye witnesses too. The prosecution evidence available on record appears to be in tight compartment. Sarswati Devi PW1 is the widow of Parshuram Sharma and her husband was killed in course of commission of robbery for which this case has been instituted, has fully supported the prosecution case and has given the actual account of the incident. She has corroborated the case made out in the fardbeyan. We do not find any material contradiction in her statement. Lavkush Sharma PW2 is nephew of deceased Parshuram sharma. The evidence of PW2 appears convincing when he corroborates each and every incidents given by PW5 in the fardbeyan. The evidence on record indicates that PW2 was trying to go out of the house by scaling over but in the mean time he was cought hold by one of the accused. When Parshuram Sharma tried to intervene, he was shot dead. This fact has been clearly narrated by PW2 in his deposition. PW2 has also identified the appellants in T.I.Parade as well as in the court in course of trial. This witness has also described the overt act committed by each of the appellants. He did not admit that the appellants were shown to him at the police station when they were brought on police remand. Before appearing in T.I.Parade, there was no occasion for him to see the appellants and this fact remains intact in his deposition. There is no material in the cross-examination to disbelieve evidence adduced by this witness. Sitaram Sharma PW5 is the informant and he has corroborated the entire incident in his deposition given in Court. He is also one of the witness who had identified the appellants in T.I. Parade and also in court during trial. The evidence adduced by PW1, 2 and 5 found corroborated from the evidence of PW3 and 4. They are the neighbouring people who had reached at the place of occurrence after hulla. He is also one of the witness who had identified the appellants in T.I. Parade and also in court during trial. The evidence adduced by PW1, 2 and 5 found corroborated from the evidence of PW3 and 4. They are the neighbouring people who had reached at the place of occurrence after hulla. The occurrence was disclosed to them by the victims. These two witnesses were also stood to the test of their cross-examination. PW7 Santosh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate had conducted T.I.Parade in which the appellants were identified. It is disclosed that each of the appellants were put in the queue for their identification separately. It is not a fact that both of them were put together in one queue for their identification. We do not find that the defence counsel has cross-examined this witness on the point of holding T.I.Parade. The question which were put to PW7 are not related to the manner in which T.I.Parade is required to be held. Only because one T.I.Parade Chart has been prepared and proved, that does not mean that both the appellants were put together in one queue at one occasion for their identification. Furthermore, PW7 is a Judicial Magistrate and it is not expected that he was interested in any manner to get the appellants identified by the witnesses and no such material has been brought on record. Likewise, we do not find that the victims were having enmity with the appellants. No reason has been assigned for false implication of the appellants and therefore, the argument that the appellants have been falsely roped in this case and to secure their conviction the witnesses were made convinced to identify them has no leg to stand. We do not find any material on record that the Investigating Officer or any other police officer of the said police station who are related in any manner with the investigation has or had enmity with the appellants. In the circumstances, we do not feel inclined to accept the argument that T.I.Parade held in this case is not genuine and that should be discarded. It is a serious case of robbery and murder. The contention made in the fardbeyan is sufficient to prove that the appellants with their associates had been to the place of occurrence under due planning armed with deadly weapons like pistol, gun etc. It is a serious case of robbery and murder. The contention made in the fardbeyan is sufficient to prove that the appellants with their associates had been to the place of occurrence under due planning armed with deadly weapons like pistol, gun etc. In course of commission of robbery they killed one of the inmates Parshuram Sharma and this fact finds support from the evidence available on record. 6. In view of the discussions made above and the evidence available on record, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Since one of the appellants namely Laldeo Mahto is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below within six weeks from today to serve out the sentence. The convicting/successor court shall take appropriate steps to secure his attendance if he does not appear within six weeks from the date of this judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2007 & 17.02.2007 respectively, passed by Sri Rai Satish Bahadur, Addl. Judl. Commissioner No.XVIth, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No.442 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.546 of 2004 arising out of Bariyatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No.31 of 2004 is hereby upheld. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed.