JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Both the Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 231/1996, whereby the appellants Yunus Ansari and Maqbul Ansari have been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence committed and punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Munna Kumar (P.W. 5), recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police C.M. Jha of Chas Police Station, on 05.07.1995 at 4.30 Hrs. in village Narainpur tola, Bartand, at the residence of Munna Kumar. The informant has alleged that marriage of the informant was finalised, tilak ceremony was held and the entire family was sleeping in the night, as the informant''s marriage was fixed on the very next date. The informant has alleged that informant along with pandit jee were sleeping on the terrace of the house on 05.07.1995 at night around 1.30 2.00 Hrs., when five accused persons climbed over the terrace. Two of the accused persons were keeping watch over the informant and the pandit jee and the other accused persons have stepped down inside the house. Altogether fourteen accused persons were involved in commission of the dacoity and after assaulting the family members including mother, father, brother, sister of the informant and one master sahib, accused persons have looted away cash, jewellery kept in the house. The accused persons were demanding the cash taken in tilak. The informant has disclosed in the fardbeyan that his mother and father could identify one of the co-villager namely Maqbul Ansari, who was involved in the dacoity. The dacoits were talking in local language. The informant has stated that he could identify the accused as well as the materials looted away, after seeing them, as the dacoits have committed the offence for 45 minutes. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995 dated 05.07.1995, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Maqbul Ansari and fourteen unknown accused persons. 4. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995 dated 05.07.1995, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against Maqbul Ansari and fourteen unknown accused persons. 4. After investigation, the police has first submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 44 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995 against Maqbul Ansari, Shankar Bauri, Rahim Ansari and Yunus Ansari under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the case pending for further investigation so far other co-accused persons are concerned. It is relevant to state here that one of the accused Shankar Bouri jumped from the bail on 13.01.2004, after recording the examination of the defence witness when the case was posted for judgment and said accused as per the information given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been apprehended by the police in last 14 years. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 26.06.1996 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 02.08.1996. 6. The charge has been framed against all the four accused persons on 06.10.1999 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence i.e. fardbeyan of the informant as Exhibit- 1. Bacchi Sinha, has been examined as P.W.1, Gita Sinha has been examined as P.W. 2, Damodar Prasad Sinha has been examined as P.W. 3, Jaideb Prasad Sinha has been examined as P.W. 4, Munna Kumar, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.5 and Bhagilal Paswan, Investigating Officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 6. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2003, to which accused/appellants have submitted that there is no evidence against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed dacoity. The defence has also examined one Suphal Bouri as D.W. 1. 9. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2003, to which accused/appellants have submitted that there is no evidence against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed dacoity. The defence has also examined one Suphal Bouri as D.W. 1. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence holding these two appellants guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code but has acquitted one Rahim Ansari from the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, two criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants before this Hon''ble Court and same are being heard together. 10. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. R.C.P. Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2004 and Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocate in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 759 of 2004. 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 test identification parade chart has not been brought on record as these appellants are known to the informant and his family members but except the name of Maqbul Ansari, the name of other accused persons have not been disclosed in the First Information Report. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that none of the looted articles as stated by the prosecution have been recovered from the house or possession of these appellants to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses, who have disclosed the name of the appellant during their deposition in the Court, cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant Yunus Ansari, who has not been named in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses, who have disclosed the name of the appellant during their deposition in the Court, cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant Yunus Ansari, who has not been named in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. R.C.P. Sah has further submitted that the case of Yunus Ansari and Rahim Ansari are identical on the facts of the case but the learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused Rahim Ansari from the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, whose name has also been taken by some of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that appellants deserve to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt from the charge and conviction passed by the learned trial court 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nehru Mahto, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the informant has disclosed the name of Maqbul Ansari, a co-villager, as one of the miscreants entered into the house of the informant for commission of dacoity. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with respect to commission of dacoity. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Bacchi Sinha (P.W. 1) mother of the informant has taken the name of Maqbul Ansari and Shankar Bouri in her deposition recorded in the court and has also identified both the persons. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Gita Sinha (P.W. 2) sister of the informant has taken the name of all the four accused persons namely Maqbul Ansari, Shankar Bauri, Yunus Ansari and Rahim Ansari in paragraph- 3 of her examination-in-chief. The identification of the accused was also not disputed as it appears from paragraph- 4 of the P.W. 2 in her evidence. The identification of the accused was also not disputed as it appears from paragraph- 4 of the P.W. 2 in her evidence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that nothing has been brought on record by the defence even after a lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to dispel the identification of the accused nor such question was asked from the investigating officer of the case who has been examined as P.W. 6 in this case, with respect to identification of the accused. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Damodar Prasad Sinha (P.W. 3) father of the informant has stated in paragraph- 4 of his deposition, that his statement was recorded by police. This witness along with his son Jaideb Prasad (P.W. 4) went on test identification parade and in presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate both of them have identified Yunus Ansari, Rahim Ansari and Shankar Bouri. Learned counsel for the State, has submitted that these accused persons have been identified by the witnesses in the court also. Jaideb Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4) brother of the informant has stated in paragraph- 21 of his crossexamination that Shankar Bouri is resident of Kumharkulhi and he is known to Shankar Bouri since childhood. In paragraph- 22 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he know Maqbul Ansari from before the date of incident. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that this witness has stated in paragraph- 34 of his cross-examination, that Shankar Bouri has assaulted him. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Munna Kumar (P.W. 5), informant of the case has named the accused Maqbul Ansari as one of the accused in commission of dacoity. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph 4 and 5 of his examination that accused have concealed their faces by a cloth, which when untied, he could identify Maqbul Ansari, Shankar Bouri and Yunus Ansari. He has also identified the accused persons present in the dock but did not identify accused Rahim Ansari. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W. 6 Bhogi Lal Paswan, Officerin-Charge, Pindrajora Police Station at the relevant time and part investigating officer of the case. He has also identified the accused persons present in the dock but did not identify accused Rahim Ansari. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W. 6 Bhogi Lal Paswan, Officerin-Charge, Pindrajora Police Station at the relevant time and part investigating officer of the case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the test identification parade has not been proved and marked exhibit in this case as the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri G.K. Dubey, Chas and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas have not been examined in this case as the prosecution witnesses. The test identification parade chart of accused Shankar Bouri and Yunus, who have been identified by Damodar Prasad Sinha (P.W. 3) and Jaideb Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4) have not been proved and marked exhibit by prosecution and Rahim Ansari has not been identified in the test identification parade but the same are available on record. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that it is a well proved case of the prosecution where the informant has identified the accused and taken the name of Maqbul Ansari in the fardbeyan and subsequently the prosecution witnesses namely Bacchi Sinha (P.W. 1) and Gita Sinha (P.W. 2) have identified the accused present in the dock. 12. During trial Damodar Prasad Sinha (P.W. 3) and Jaideb Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4), who have appeared in the test identification parades on 14.08.1995 and 31.08.1995 have also identified the accused Yunus Ansari and Shankar Bouri but they have not identified Rahim Ansari. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that these prosecution witnesses have also stated the role played by these accused persons during the commission of the dacoity and as such, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts against these appellants. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this court towards the evidence of P.W. 2 Gita Sinha particularly in paragraph- 4 of her cross-examination where the identification of the accused is not under cloud. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the State counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment does not warrants any interference by this Hon''ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. R.C.P. Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2004 and Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocate in Cr. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the State counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment does not warrants any interference by this Hon''ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. R.C.P. Sah in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 567 of 2004 and Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocate in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 759 of 2004 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nehru Mahto, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record, i.e. F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, one prosecution exhibit, the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 CrPC, one defence witness and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has also perused all the test identification parade charts kept on the record. This Court has also found that evidence of the prosecution witnesses are consistent so far commission of dacoity is concerned and the police has also submitted chargesheet under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code as the F.I.R. was lodged against one named Maqbul Ansari and fourteen unknown accused persons but while submitting the first chargesheet vide no. 44 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995 against four accused persons, the investigation has been kept pending, so far other accused persons are concerned. The court below has rightly framed the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code as the four persons were sent up for trial and rest of the accused persons were under investigation, as the offence has been committed by one named and fourteen unknown accused persons. This Court has perused the record. From perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 Bacchi Sinha in paragraph- 4, it appears that she has identified Maqbul Ansari and Shankar Bouri in the court. Gita Sinha (P.W. 2) has identified all the four accused persons present in the court. The learned trial court has also mentioned in paragraph- 4 of the evidence of P.W. 2, that the identification of the accused is not under doubt. Damodar Prasad Sinha (P.W. 3) has identified the accused in the first identification parade (though the test identification parade has not been proved and marked as exhibit) and has also identified the accused present in the dock with specific allegation or the role played by the accused at the time of commission of dacoity. Damodar Prasad Sinha (P.W. 3) has identified the accused in the first identification parade (though the test identification parade has not been proved and marked as exhibit) and has also identified the accused present in the dock with specific allegation or the role played by the accused at the time of commission of dacoity. Jaideb Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4) has also identified the accused in the First Identification Parade (though the same has not been proved and marked as exhibit) but he has also identified the accused present in the dock with specific overact and as such, this Court is of the opinion that accused persons have been rightly convicted by the learned trial court as they have been identified by the inmates of the house in the dock and some of them during the test identification parade. Appellant Rahim Ansari has not been identified by any of the witnesses in the test identification parade and as such, he has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial court. Considering the evidence brought on record, nothing has been brought on record by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case, as such this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence. 14. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 231/1996, arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 53 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. No. 762/1995 are hereby affirmed and upheld. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court is also affirmed. 15. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled to serve out rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. Both the appellants named above, are directed to surrender before the learned trial court forthwith to serve out rest of their sentence. If the appellants are not surrendering, the learned trial court is directed to take all steps for their appearance to serve out rest of their sentence. 16. In the result, both the criminal appeals are dismissed. 17. Both the appellants named above, are directed to surrender before the learned trial court forthwith to serve out rest of their sentence. If the appellants are not surrendering, the learned trial court is directed to take all steps for their appearance to serve out rest of their sentence. 16. In the result, both the criminal appeals are dismissed. 17. Before parting with the judgment this Court shows displeasure towards the Police Department who have not completed their investigation at least till 2004, when the trial of the accused was concluded by the learned trial court nor apprehended the accused Shankar Bauri who has jumped from the bail on 13.01.2004, after the defence evidence was closed and the case was pending for judgment. Director General of Police, Jharkhand is directed to take suitable actions against erring officers. Let a copy of this judgment be also handed over to the Law Secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police, Jharkhand. 18. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.