ORDER : The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both, dated 06.09.2003, passed by learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2002/39 of 2003, whereby the above named six appellants have been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence committed and punishable under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Against the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeals have been preferred before this Court, which are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Md. Asfaque (P.W. 3) recorded by S.I. Manoj Kr. Singh, of Shikaripara Police Station on 24.04.2001 at 14.00 hrs. at Rampur Hat- Dumka Road, near Ramgarh, where the informant has stated that informant and his friends are doing the business of selling leather at Beldangha bazar in the district of Murshidabad in West Bengal. While they were returning on Tuesday after selling the leather along with money in a truck bearing registration No. BR- 13B- 5332 G, at around 1.00 P.M. they reached near Rampur Hat-Dumka road near Ramgarh, they saw a maruti van bearing registration No. WB- 38G4108 was standing there. When the truck reached near the maruti van, the maruti van blocked the road and five accused persons got down from the said van and committed dacoity. Three accused persons had tried to conceal their face and two accused persons have not put anything to conceal their face, one of the accused person was sitting on the driving seat of the maruti van. Two of the accused persons were having long pistols and others were having country made pistol in their hands. The accused persons on threat and assault made dacoity of money from the informant and his friends. The amount of Rs. 20,900/- has been taken from the informant, amount of Rs. 53,000/- has been taken from Harmuz Ali, Rs. 22,000/- has been taken from Md. Irshad, Rs. 17,000/- has been taken from Md. Rustom and Rs. 26,000/- has been taken from Md. Kasim. Thereafter, one of the accused also climbed on the back side of the truck and the informant has claimed that the accused have also taken Rs. 6500/- from Md. Siyakat, Rs. 5500/- from Md. 22,000/- has been taken from Md. Irshad, Rs. 17,000/- has been taken from Md. Rustom and Rs. 26,000/- has been taken from Md. Kasim. Thereafter, one of the accused also climbed on the back side of the truck and the informant has claimed that the accused have also taken Rs. 6500/- from Md. Siyakat, Rs. 5500/- from Md. Abid, Rs. 4500/- from Kisan Ravidas, Rs. 2500/- from Hazrat Ali, Rs. 3500/- from Md. Kayasuddin, Rs. 5500/- from Md. Faruque, Rs. 4500/- from Abudar Rahman, Rs. 4000/- from Mansur Ansari and Rs. 4000/- from Ryasuddin Ansari. The accused persons while fleeing away, the cloth was removed from their face and thus, the informant has identified two of the accused persons, one, belongs to his village, namely Sahadat Ansari and other accused was Kaliya, who is resident of village Lathibari, P.S. Poraiyahat. The informant has further stated and alleged that the accused persons have looted in total a sum of Rs. 1,79,400/- in cash. The informant has claimed that Sahadat Ansari and Kaliya and the driver of maruti van bearing registration no. WB 38G 4108, they had also committed dacoity with such merchants 3-4 years ago, while they were returning in a 407 goods vehicle by showing pistol and other weapons and looted money. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2001 dated 24.04.2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation the police submitted three charge-sheet against the accused persons. The first charge-sheet was submitted vide charge sheet no. 55 of 2001 dated 28.07.2001 against Sahadat Ansari and Vijay Poddar under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, second charge-sheet was submitted vide charge sheet no. 68 of 2001 dated 22.10.2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Anand Kumar Mandal, Kaliya @ Abdul Rahim and Md. Imtiyaz @ Karu Mian and third charge-sheet has been submitted vide charge sheet no. 69 of 2001 dated 23.10.2001 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Bakar Mian @ Muzahir. 4. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.07.2001 against Vijay Poddar and Sahdeo Ansari and vide order dated 22.10.2001 against Abdul Rahim @ Kaliya, Imtiyaz and Anand Kumar Mandal, and also vide order dated 26.10.2001 against Bakar Mian @ Muzahir. 4. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.07.2001 against Vijay Poddar and Sahdeo Ansari and vide order dated 22.10.2001 against Abdul Rahim @ Kaliya, Imtiyaz and Anand Kumar Mandal, and also vide order dated 26.10.2001 against Bakar Mian @ Muzahir. The case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 03.01.2002. The charge has been framed against all the six accused persons namely Md. Sahadat Ansari, Vijay Poddar, Anand Kumar Mandal, Md. Rahim @ Kalia, Baker Mian and Md. Imtiyaz @ Karu Mian under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.04.2002 to which they have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses and have also adduced documentary evidence to prove their case. Md. Irshad has been examined as P.W. 1, Liyakat has been examined as P.W. 2, Md. Asfaque, informant of the case has been examined as P.W. 3, Md. Rustom has been examined as P.W.4, Md. Abid has been examined as P.W. 5, Md. Abadur Rahman has been examined as P.W. 6, Md. Harbhuj Ali has been examined as P.W. 7, Md. Kaimuddin has been examined as P.W. 8, Md. Mansoor Ansari has been examined as P.W. 9, Riyazuddin Ansari has been examined as P.W. 10, Kisan Ravidas has been examined as P.W. 11, Shakal Deo Ram, officer-in-charge has been examined as P.W. 12, Md. Hazrat Ali has been examined as P.W. 13, Manoj Kumar Singh, investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 14, Mohan Choubey, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who has conducted the test identification parade of the accused has been examined as P.W. 15, Rajendra Bahadur Pal, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who has also conducted the test identification parade of the accused has been examined as P.W. 16. 6. The signature of Md. Irshad on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, the signature of Md. Ashfaque on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1, signature of Md. 6. The signature of Md. Irshad on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, the signature of Md. Ashfaque on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1, signature of Md. Rustom on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/2, signature of Abid on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/3, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/4, the signature of Dharmadeo Sharma on F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, test identification parade conducted and chart prepared by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Mohan Choubey (P.W. 15) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3, the test identification parade conducted and chart prepared by Judicial Magistrate, Rajendra Bahadur Pal has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3/a. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.07.2003 where they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent, thus they were put under trial. 8. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which has been assailed before this Court in these five criminal appeals which are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 9. Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1555 of 2003, Cr. A. (SJ) No. 1556 of 2003 & Cr. A. (SJ) No. 1560 of 2003, Md. Jalisur Rahman in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1371 of 2003, Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1386 of 2003. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of test identification parade, which has been conducted after two months of arrest of the accused and as such the sanctity of the test identification parade is under cloud and thus appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt and may be acquitted from charge and conviction. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that these persons were subsequently made accused in another case of Arms Act but the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellants in the said case and as such the appellants may be given benefit of doubt in this case also and they may be acquitted. 10. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded on the basis of material available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly passed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that all the witnesses who are victims of this case have been examined in this case and there are consistency in their evidences. Learned counsel for the State has further stated that the learned Judicial Magistrates P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 have conducted the test identification parade. The defence has taken plea, that test identification parade lost its sanctity because the test identification parade has been held after two months of arrest of the appellants, but the said plea cannot be allowed to be taken at the stage of the appeal which has not been taken before the learned Trial Court nor any suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses regarding the same during their cross-examination. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the police officers namely Shakaldeo Ram, Officer-in-charge, Manoj Kumar Singh, investigating officer has also been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the evidences on the record, there is no infirmity nor any contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and as such the order of sentence is fit to be upheld by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgment and the fardbeyan of the informant, it appears that these accused persons have criminal antecedent of committing the crime of the same nature like road dacoity as stated in the First Information Report and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be upheld by this Hon’ble Court. 11. Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1555 of 2003, Cr. 11. Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1555 of 2003, Cr. A. (SJ) No. 1556 of 2003 & Cr. A. (SJ) No. 1560 of 2003, Md. Jalisur Rahman in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1371 of 2003, Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1386 of 2003 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, perused the record, the First Information Report, the charge, evidence of all the sixteen witnesses, exhibits, 313 statement of the appellants and the impugned judgment, it appears that all the witnesses who are victim of this case have been examined as P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 13 and their statements are consistent with respect to the manner of occurrence and commission of dacoity. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. P.W. 12 is the Officer-in-charge, P.W. 13 is the investigating Officer and they have also corroborated the prosecution evidence. P.W. 15 Mohan Choubey and P.W. 16 Rajendra Bahadur Pal are Judicial Magistrates, who have conducted the test identification parade of the accused persons in which accused Bakar Miyan was identified by Md. Irshad and Md. Imtiyaz @ Karu has been identified by Md. Irshad, Md. Rahim @ Kalia has been identified by Md. Rustom (P.W. 4), Anand Kumar Mandal has been identified by Md. Abadur Rahman (P.W. 6), Vijay Poddar, driver of the maruti van bearing registration No. WB 38G 4108 has been identified by Md. Abid (P.W. 5) and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is justified as there is no infirmity to disbelieve the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that test identification parade has lost its sanctity as it has been conducted after two months of the arrest of the accused but no such suggestion has been given by the defence nor the appellants has explained that what type of prejudice has been caused to them during trial or statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants have not stated anything regarding the test identification parade which was conducted by a Judicial officer in the Trial Court. Considering these aspects of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the appellants with regard to the sanctity of the test identification parade is hereby rejected. The submission of the learned counsels for the appellants, that these accused persons were made accused in other Arms Act case, in which they have been acquitted. This shows that the accused persons have committed offence of similar nature though, may ended in acquittal of the appellants on different technical grounds but the same atleast proved that they had committed dacoity with a van bearing registration no. WB 38G 4108 and these accused persons have been apprehended by the police on the same day by surrounding them, so the submissions made by the learned counsels for the appellants are also hereby rejected and as such this Court uphelds and affirms the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as discussed above. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both, dated 06.09.2003, passed by learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2002/39 of 2003 in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 371/2001 is hereby affirmed and upheld in all these criminal appeals and the appellants are held guilty of the charge and rightly convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court forthwith to serve out the rest of their sentences. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all methods for procurement of their attendance to serve out the rest of the sentence, if they are not surrendering. The period already undergone by the appellants during trial in jail will be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 14. In the result the five criminal appeals preferred by these six appellants are hereby dismissed. 15. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.