JUDGMENT K. R. MOHAPATRA, J. - Both these appeals have been filed assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.1999 passed by Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No.39 of 1996 convicting Rabindra Barik (appellant in CRA No.155 of 1999) as well as Kapila Barik (appellant in CRA No.161 of 1999) under Section 302 and 34 and 452 and 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of such payment, to undergo RI for 3 months for commission of offence under Section 302 and 34 of IPC and to undergo RI for 2 years for commission of offence under Section 452 and 34 of IPC. Appellant-Rabindra Barik is also convicted under Section 324 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. On the oral report of Janjali Singh (PW-10), which was reduced to writing, Nilgiri PS Case No.58 dated 31.5.1996 was registered under Sections 302/458/380/342/323/324/427/34 of IPC, Section 9-B of Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Kapila Barik and others. 3. Prosecution case, as revealed from the FIR in a nut shell, is that prior to 7/8 years from the date of occurrence, Kapila Barik had hired Sukura Singh (the deceased) as servant. At that time, the informant and her deceased-husband were staying at village Belabandh.Realizing the difficulty to commute from Balibandh to perform the daily chores at the house of Kapila situated at Radhaballavpur, said Kapila had allowed the deceased to construct a house near to his plot at Jena Sahi of Radhaballavpur. Accordingly, the deceased and the informant were staying there by constructing a house. Prior to two years of the occurrence, the deceased due to his old age became incapable to perform household chores at the house of Kapila. As such, Kapila instructed the deceased to vacate the said plot, but the deceased and the informant did not concede to the same on the plea that they were ST persons and the plot on which they were staying was a Government land. Said Kapila also filed Civil Suit against the deceased for his eviction from said plot. As such, Kapila instructed the deceased to vacate the said plot, but the deceased and the informant did not concede to the same on the plea that they were ST persons and the plot on which they were staying was a Government land. Said Kapila also filed Civil Suit against the deceased for his eviction from said plot. On 30/31.05.1996, at about midnight when the inmates of the house, namely, the deceased, the informant as well as her aunt, namely, Manguli Singh and her daughter, Rangi Singh were asleep at their house, 15-20 persons arrived there and started to pull down the straw from the roof. At that time, a lantern was glowing in the room where the deceased and the informant were sleeping. With the light of the lantern, the informant could identify Kapila Barik. Other accused persons were armed with ’bhujali’, bamboo stick and knife. Some of them were also holding torch light. At that moment, Kapila Barik instructed other accused persons to kill the informant and the deceased along with other inmates of the house. The accused persons at once started throwing the household articles. At the instruction of Kapila, one of the accused persons brought out a sharp knife and started assaulting the deceased with the same. Other accused persons also assaulted the deceased. When the informant rushed to give water to her husband (the deceased), the accused who had stabbed the deceased also dealt a blow on the left hand of the informant. At that time, it was raining. Subsequently, the informant found her husband to be dead. The accused persons left the spot along with household articles of the informant. On receiving the oral report, the same was reduced to writing by the OIC, Nilgiri and read over the same to the informant, who admitted the same to have been written correctly. Accordingly, the Nilgiri P.S. Case No.58 dated 31.05.1996 was registered. Since the FIR disclosed cognizable offences, OIC, Nilgiri P.S. (PW-14) took up investigation. 4. In course of the investigation, the IO (PW-14) examined the informant (PW-10) sent the injured for medical examination and commanded the Constables to guard the dead body by issuing command certificate ( Ext.6). He also visited the spot; prepared the spot map (Ext.7) and examined the witnesses and inmates of the house. 4. In course of the investigation, the IO (PW-14) examined the informant (PW-10) sent the injured for medical examination and commanded the Constables to guard the dead body by issuing command certificate ( Ext.6). He also visited the spot; prepared the spot map (Ext.7) and examined the witnesses and inmates of the house. On his requisition, the Scientific Officer and dog squad reached at the spot by 1.00 PM on 31.05.1996. He held inquest over the dead body, prepared the inquest report (Ext.1); sent the dead body for post-mortem examination along with dead body challan (Ext.-8). At 3.30 P.M., seized blood stained sample earth, one hurricane lantern, three bamboo poles, two live bombs in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list (Ext.9). The sniffer dog led the team to the paddy field of one Kuna Das, from where ‘Mandara” flowers, a bamboo lathi and an empty packet of agarvati, some vermillion, turmeric powder, an aluminium pot, a sky coloured half shirt were seized. The articles were kept under a mango tree. The IO also sent Manguli Singh (PW-13) and Janjali (PW-10) for their medical examination. On production of the wearing apparels of the deceased by the accompanying Constables, the same were seized vide seizure list (Ext.-13). On 27.06.1996, accused Kapila Barik was arrested and forwarded to the Court. On the prayer of the IO, the Test Identification Parade of Kapila Barik was conducted in which PWs-10 and 13 identified him. The IO also gave requisition to the Tahasildar, Nilgiri for demarcation of the land, where the house of the deceased was situated. On demarcation, the Tahasildar found the case land to be ‘gochar’. During investigation, the caste certificates of the deceased as well as the injured persons were also seized. On 18.09.1996, wearing apparels of the deceased along with blood stained and sample earth were sent to the State Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination. Ext.-15 is the chemical examination report. In spite of thorough search and raids, the IO could not arrest other accused persons. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections was submitted against the appellants and five other accused persons; accordingly they faced trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, out of whom PW-10 is the widow of the deceased and informant in the case. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections was submitted against the appellants and five other accused persons; accordingly they faced trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, out of whom PW-10 is the widow of the deceased and informant in the case. PW-13 is the aunt of PW-10; PWs-6 and 7 are the son and son-in-law of the deceased respectively. PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the post-occurrence witnesses and PWs-5 and 8 are the witnesses to the inquest. PW-9 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the cadaver of the deceased and examined PW-13, PW-11 is the Amin, who demarcated the land over which the house of the deceased was situated. P.W.-12 is the Doctor, who examined PW-10 and PW-14 is the IO,. The prosecution also relied upon aforesaid documentary evidence in support of their case. It also placed reliance on MO-I, the lantern, MO-II, the bamboo lathi, MO-III, the rope to bring home the charge against the accused persons. 6. The plea of defence was of complete denial of their involvement in the crime and they pleaded their innocence. 7. On a conspectus of the materials available on record, learned trial Court held both the appellants guilty of offences and sentenced them as stated above. Due to paucity of materials against the rest of the accused persons, they were set at liberty. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Kapila Barik assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence submitted that PWs.-1,2, 3, 4 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. There are lots of discrepancies in the testimony of PWs-10 and 13, who are stated to be the ocular witnesses to the occurrence. PW-13 stated in her testimony that after the incident in the night itself, she came out to the street and called Karua Singh and Kalu Singh and stated the incident before them. But they were not examined by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it did not examined DW-1 (Rangi Singh), who was an inmate of the house in the night of occurrence. She was examined by the defence and testified a different story, which completely rules out involvement of both the appellants in the incident. But they were not examined by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it did not examined DW-1 (Rangi Singh), who was an inmate of the house in the night of occurrence. She was examined by the defence and testified a different story, which completely rules out involvement of both the appellants in the incident. He also pointed out some discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and submitted that due to filing of the Civil Suit against the deceased, Kapila has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no evidence on record to show that Kapila Barik had in fact dealt any blow either on the deceased or on injured persons, i.e. PWs-10 and 13. The Police seized MO-I, which is a lantern without glass. As the occurrence took place in a stormy night, it is highly improbable that a lantern without glass was glowing and with that glow PWs-10 and 13 could identify Kapila. Thus, there is inherent improbability in the case of the prosecution. As such, he is entitled for an acquittal. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Rabindra Barik supporting the submission of learned counsel for Kapila Barik contended that Rabindra Barik was neither named in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He was also not put to TI parade. For the first time, PWs-10 and 13 could identify him in Court. Thus, convicting appellant-Rabindra Barik for commission of the crime on the basis of Court identification, without any corroboration, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his case, learned Counsel for appellant-Rabindra Barik also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors vs State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 295 ; Noormahammad and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2016 (63) OCR (SC) 925 and decision of this Court in the case of Guli Behera Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2018 (69) OCR 423 and prayed for acquittal of appellant-Rabindra Barik due to lack of clinching material against him. 10. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2016 (63) OCR (SC) 925 and decision of this Court in the case of Guli Behera Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2018 (69) OCR 423 and prayed for acquittal of appellant-Rabindra Barik due to lack of clinching material against him. 10. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and categorically submitted that both PWs-10 and 13, who are natural and injured witnesses to the occurrence, have categorically stated that at the instruction of Kapila Barik, Rabindra Barik also dealt knife blows to PW-10 and also assaulted PW-13. The said testimonies of PWs 10 and 13 have not been disturbed in any manner, although exhaustive cross-examination was made by the defence. Minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses could not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, as ocular witnesses, who received injuries during the occurrence, have categorically implicated both the appellants. The statement of DW-1, namely, Rangi Singh, who was also an inmate of the house in the night of the occurrence, can not be believed in view of her prevaricating statements during cross-examination. She is also a procured and tutored witness on behalf of the defence. Rabindra Barik could not be put to TI parade as he was absconding. Only after submission of the charge-sheet, he surrendered before the Court. Hence, he could not be put to TI Parade and the same should not be viewed seriously. On the other hand, he was identified by both the ocular witnesses, i.e. PWs.-10 and 13 in Court, although identification of an accused for the fist time in Court is a weak piece of evidence, but the same is admissible in evidence. Further, it is not a matter of rule but a matter of prudence that identification of an accused for the first time in Court should be preceded and corroborated buy a TI parade. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 358 in support of his case. Learned trial Court, taking all these materials into consideration and discussing the evidence on record in threadbare, has passed the impugned order, which needs no interference. 11. The defence does not dispute the death of the deceased to be homicidal. Learned trial Court, taking all these materials into consideration and discussing the evidence on record in threadbare, has passed the impugned order, which needs no interference. 11. The defence does not dispute the death of the deceased to be homicidal. Both the appellants denied their involvement in the occurrence. On the other hand, PW-10 land PW-13, who received injuries in course of occurrence, claimed themselves to be ocular witnesses to the occurrence. PW-10 (the informant) is none other than the widow of the deceased. She categorically deposed that in the night of occurrence, it was raining. She and her husband slept in one room. In the midnight, she found accused Kapila and other miscreants entered inside the room and assaulted them. They also pulled down straw from the roof and took away the utensils as well as her ornaments, rice and a goat. In furtherance of their action, they demolished the house and tied her. One of the miscreants, namely, Rabindra Barik (whom she identified in Court room) stabbed the deceased. When she cried, one of the assailants untied her. When she went to give some water to her husband, Rabindra Barik gave a blow by that knife to her left lower arm. At that time, Kapila shouted at others to kill her husband as they were hired for that purpose. She could identify Kapila with the light of a lantern (MO-I) glowing in their room at that time. Although she denied to have seen Rabindra prior to the incident and was ignorant of his name, she could identify him in the Court room. In cross-examination, she categorically stated that when first blow was dealt on the shoulder of her husband he sat down and thereafter Rabindra dealt knife blow on the neck of her husband, as a result of which he fell down. PW-13, who happens to be the aunt of PW-10 deposed that when she along with her daughter (Rangi Singh- DW-1) were sleeping in another room of the house of PW-10, she heard some sound and woke up. She found that accused Lachhman Das, Ganeswar Das, Rabi Das and Rabindra Barik (who were identified by her in the dock) along with two others entered inside their room.They dealt blow on her and dragged them out of the house. She further deposed that the appellants and others dragged Sukura (the deceased) and his wife (PW-10) to the verandah. She found that accused Lachhman Das, Ganeswar Das, Rabi Das and Rabindra Barik (who were identified by her in the dock) along with two others entered inside their room.They dealt blow on her and dragged them out of the house. She further deposed that the appellants and others dragged Sukura (the deceased) and his wife (PW-10) to the verandah. Accused Kapila caught the arm of Sukura. They also tied her and her daughter (PW-13) and Janjali (P.W-10). She also stated that accused Rabindra Barik dealt a blow on the deceased by a knife like weapon on his neck, chest and left shoulder. PW-5, who was a witness to the inquest, although declared hostile by the prosecution, but categorically deposed that having heard that Sukura had died he went to his house which is about two kilometers away. He found Sukura (the deceased) lying dead with stabbed injuries on his neck. PW-9, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body, has found the following external injuries on the dead body :- “2. I found dried blood stain present on the neck of anterior chest wall. Rigormortis was present all over the body. I found the following ante mortem injuries :- i. Stab injury on the left side neck 1 ½ above and left of the left sterono clavicular joint of size 1 ½ length and 2" depth. It had clear-cut margin and everted. ii. Incised injury of size 5"X1/4" skin depth on the anterior of the left shoulder and left anterior chest wall. No tailing was marked. It had clear cut margin. iii. Incised injury 2" x1/4x ½ of the skin depth on centre of the right palm.” He also found following internal injuries. “3. On dissection of injury No. (i) it revealed that there was clear cut subcutaneous tissue, muscle depth and carotid sheath and internal jugular vein and carotid artery with infiltration of blood in to the muscle and surrounding subcutaneous tissue. Blood clots present adherent to tissues. Heart chambers were empty.” He opined the injuries to be ante-mortem in nature. The death was caused probably due to hemorrhage and shock caused due to injury to great vessels of neck. He further opined that injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course. Nothing material could be brought out in his cross-examination. He also examined PW-13 on police requisition and found the following injuries. 7. The death was caused probably due to hemorrhage and shock caused due to injury to great vessels of neck. He further opined that injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course. Nothing material could be brought out in his cross-examination. He also examined PW-13 on police requisition and found the following injuries. 7. On 31.5.96, I was attached to Nilgiri Sub-Divisional Hospital as Medicine Specialist. On that date by 8.10 P.M. on police requisition, I examined Manguli Singh w/o. Late Jagannath Singh of village Mangalpur and found the following injuries on her person: (i) selling on left buttock of size 3x3". It was of red colour. The nature of injury was simple. (ii) The patient complained of pain and tenderness over left breast below the scapula, but I could not find any external injury thereon.” PW-12, who examined PW-10, found one incised wound of size 1x1 x1/8" situated on the lateral aspect of left hand 1" above the wrist joint, which was simple in nature and probably caused by sharp cutting weapon within 12 hours of examination. Thus, the testimony of PW-10 and PW-13 with regard to injuries on their persons as well as on the person of the deceased are well-corroborated by the examining doctors, PW-9 and PW-12. Further, PW-10 and PW-13 although have been cross-examined exhaustively nothing material could be brought out from their mouth to disbelieve their testimony. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement of PW-10 and PW-13. They submitted that PW-10 in her testimony has not said anything about the presence of PW-13 or DW-1 at her house at the time of occurrence. Further the testimony of PW-10 that she could identify Kapila in the light of the lantern (MO-I) is un-believable as the MO-I, which was seized by the Police, was without any glass. Since the night of occurrence was stormy, possibility of glowing of a lantern without a glass is highly improbable. Further, PW-10 in her examination in-chief, although stated Kapila to have entered into the room where she along with the deceased were sleeping, in her cross-examination at paragraph-10, has categorically stated that accused-Kapila was at the verandah of the house. In addition to the above, PW-13 in her cross-examination, has stated that she along Sukura and others were assaulted in verandah but not inside the room. In addition to the above, PW-13 in her cross-examination, has stated that she along Sukura and others were assaulted in verandah but not inside the room. Hence, their statements should not be believed. On a thorough scrutiny of the statements of PW-10 and PW-13, it is apparent that they have vividly described the sequel of occurrence and assault on the deceased by Rabindra on the instruction of Kapila. Minor discrepancies as pointed out above by learned counsel for the appellants, therefore lose its significance when the testimony of assault is well-corroborated by medical evidence. 12. Mr.Das Parida, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Rabindra Barik, categorically stated that the name of Rabindra was neither in the FIR nor was there in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was also not put to TI parade. For the first time, he was identified by PW-10 and PW-13 in Court, which is highly susceptible. Hence, conviction of Rabindra is not sustainable. In support of his contention, Mr.Das Parida relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors (supra), Noormahammad and Ors. (supra) and decision of this Court in the case of Guli Behera (supra), wherein it is held as follows : “..... Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of fats necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. U says, inter alia, facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose, are relevant. So the evidence of identification is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consists of identification of the accused at his trial. The identification of an accused by a witness in court is substantive evidence whereas evidence of identification. “21..... It is well-settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable despatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is what is its probative value ? Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. Question is what is its probative value ? Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by catena of decisions of this Court in the cases of Kanta Prasdad v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1958) SC 350, Vaikuntam Chandrappa (supra), Budhsen (supra) Kanan and Ors. V. State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319 , Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v.State of Maharashtra, (1982) 1 SCC 700 , Jaspal Singh alias Pali v. State of Punjab, (1997) 1 SCC 510 , Raju alilas Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 1 SCC 169 , Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris, (supra), George land Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 605 , Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra), State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Anr., (2000) 12 SCC 247 and Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v.State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 SCC 358 .” (emphasis supplied) On the other hand, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-21 held as follows :- “21.... Accused No.1 and his accomplices had a quarrel with him and his supporters. That part of the evidence of these eye witnesses had remained well sustained on record. So far as witness Niruben was concerned, she is the wife of the deceased Ramanbhai Mohanbhai. Accused No.1 and his accomplices had a quarrel with him and his supporters. That part of the evidence of these eye witnesses had remained well sustained on record. So far as witness Niruben was concerned, she is the wife of the deceased Ramanbhai Mohanbhai. The accused mounted an assault on her husband in her bedroom and even though she might not be knowing the accused earlier, the faces of the accused mounting such an assault and which caused fatal injuries to her husband can easily be treated to have been imprinted in her mind and when she could identify these accused in the Court even in the absence of identification parade, it could not be said that her deposition was unnatural or she was trying to falsely rope in “the present accused by shielding the real assaulters on her husband. (emphasis supplied) The aforesaid case laws clearly suggest that although identification of an accused for the first time in Court is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a matter of prudence, not law, it requires corroboration by identification in TI parade or otherwise. Further, there is no reason as to why a lady, whose husband has been assaulted to death, would falsely implicate a person shielding the real assailant. Even if she identifies the accused in the Court for the first time without any TI parade before, her statement should not be discarded lightly. In the case at hand, the testimony of PW-10 and PW-13 are well-corroborated by medical evidence of PW-9 and PW-12. PW-5 although declared hostile, also corroborates the injuries on the person of the deceased. It is important to note here that Rabindra was not known to either PW-10 or PW-13. He could not be put to TI parade as he was absconding at the time of submission of the charge sheet. It is noteworthy that both PWs-10 and 13 have categorically deposed that at the instruction of Kapila another culprit dealt blows to the deceased as well as PW-10 by knife and identified him in Court. No material has been placed before us to raise doubt with regard to identification of appellant-Rabindra in Court. TI parade of the accused is not a matter of rule but a matter of prudence. Hence, non-performance of TI parade of appellant Rabindra Barik cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. 13. No material has been placed before us to raise doubt with regard to identification of appellant-Rabindra in Court. TI parade of the accused is not a matter of rule but a matter of prudence. Hence, non-performance of TI parade of appellant Rabindra Barik cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. 13. In view of the discussions made above, we are constrained to hold that the contentions raised by learned counsel for both the appellants are not sustainable both on fact and law. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial Court has discussed the materials available on record meticulously and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment, which would call for any interference. 14. In that view of the matter, both the appeals being devoid of any merit, stand dismissed. Since both the appellants were granted bail by this Court during pendency of the appeals, their bail bonds be cancelled and they be taken to custody forthwith to undergo the rest part of the sentence. LCR be sent back forthwith. Appeals dismissed.