JUDGEMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole convict has challenged the judgment of his conviction under section 302/34 IPC and section 394 IPC dated 18.06.2014 passed in S.C. No. 136 of 2008. He has been sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- under section 302/34 IPC and R.I for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 394 IPC. 2. The appellant and the co-accused, namely, Guddu Gupta are said to have snatched rifle from Jagdish Thakur, RPF constable, and the appellant fired a pistol shot on his chest while they were travelling in Train No. 3072 DN, Jamalpur-Howrah Express on 04.09.2004. Both the accused persons were not known to the informant who was present on Jamalpur-Howrah Express as Duty Guard and, therefore, on the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded on 04.09.2004 at about 22:30 hrs., Rail Sahibganj P.S. Case No. 20 of 2004 was lodged under section 394/307/34 IPC against unknown. The injured constable, namely, Jagdish Thakur succumbed to the pistol shot injury during the course of his treatment and thereafter the offence under section 302 IPC was added in the report. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under section 394/307/302/34 IPC and section 120-B IPC against the appellant keeping the investigation pending against other co-accused persons but finally in respect of them final form was submitted on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant, namely, Ram Swaroop Mandal is P.W.2 and the investigating officer is P.W.8. The prosecution has tendered in evidence documents including the confessional statement of the appellant which was recorded on 13.09.2004 and marked as exhibit-4. 4. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 04.09.2004 he was discharging his duty as Duty Guard on Jamalpur-Howrah Express. The train started from Jamalpur station in the evening at about 6:00 p.m. and it stopped at Mirzachouki at 21:44 hrs. When the train moved from Mirzachouki at about 21:46 hrs. two unknown persons boarded his compartment. When quizzed by RPF escort party they said that they were going only upto Sahibganj. The train reached Karamtola at 21:52 hrs. from where it started at 21:54 hrs. but again stopped at 22:02 hrs. awaiting signal. At that time, he was preparing relief memo when he suddenly heard sound of quarrel. two unknown persons boarded his compartment. When quizzed by RPF escort party they said that they were going only upto Sahibganj. The train reached Karamtola at 21:52 hrs. from where it started at 21:54 hrs. but again stopped at 22:02 hrs. awaiting signal. At that time, he was preparing relief memo when he suddenly heard sound of quarrel. When he turned around he found that one of the unknown persons who had boarded the train at Mirzachouki was carrying a rifle in one hand and a pistol in other hand. He saw that the said miscreant had pointed pistol to the RPF constable and then he fired a shot on his chest. Both the miscreants jumped from the train carrying the looted rifle along with them. 5. The prosecution has projected the informant as an eye-witness. In his examination-in-chief, the informant has stated about his presence on Jamalpur-Howrah Express on 04.09.2004, two unknown persons boarding the train at Mirzachouki, the escort party asking them why they have boarded the running train and one of the miscreants firing a pistol shot on the chest of Jagdish Thakur, the constable. The informant has narrated a similar story of the incident as has been recorded in his fardbeyan that had happened on Jamalpur-Howrah Express at about 22:04 hrs. on 04.09.2004. The learned Sessions Judge has found his evidence reliable and trustworthy. Another eye-witness of the occurrence is Sunil Sharma-P.W.4, a passenger. This witness has also narrated a similar story of the incident in which the constable Jagdish Thakur was shot at his chest by one of the miscreants who had boarded the train at Mirzachouki. He has also spoken about boarding the train by two unknown persons, presence of the escort party and fleeing away of both the miscreants from the train with the rifle snatched from Jagdish Thakur. 6. During their cross-examination, both these witnesses have stood to their ground and reiterated the incidence of 04.09.2004 as was described by them in their examination-in-chief. 7. Md. 6. During their cross-examination, both these witnesses have stood to their ground and reiterated the incidence of 04.09.2004 as was described by them in their examination-in-chief. 7. Md. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that : (i) identification of the appellant for the first time in the court cannot form the basis for his conviction, (ii) presence of P.W.4 in the guard room of Jamalpur-Howrah Express was not disclosed by the informant, (iii) neither the crime weapon nor the looted rifle was recovered, (iv) the medical evidence does not corroborate the manner of occurrence, and (v) non-examination of the Magistrate who has conducted TIP and non-production of TIP chart would create doubt on complicity of the appellant in the crime. 8. The identification of an accused in TIP is a primary evidence but not substantive evidence. The evidence on identification of an accused in TIP is used to corroborate identification of the accused in the court. The law on the subject is by now well established. The identification of an accused in the court by a witness is a substantive evidence but identification of an accused for the first time in the court has been held to be inherently of a week character and unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in TIP or with any other evidence, normally, conviction is not recorded on the basis of identification of an accused by a solitary witness for the first time in the court. In the present case, there are two eye-witnesses who have identified the appellant in the court. According to the prosecution, they have identified the appellant during TIP. P.W.2 and P.W.4, both, have deposed in the court that they have identified the appellant in TIP. There are other corroborative evidences which lend support to the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 on identification of the appellant and commission of crime by him. The prosecution witnesses – Kailash Paswan-P.W.1, Mahavir Prasad Sah-P.W.3, Daskeshwar Yadav-P.W.5 and Kapildeo Bhagat-P.W.6 – have deposed in the court that they were travelling on Jamalpur-Howrah Express and they were informed that one of the miscreants who had boarded the train had snatched rifle from the constable-Jagdish Thakur and fired a pistol shot on his chest. 9. Dr. The prosecution witnesses – Kailash Paswan-P.W.1, Mahavir Prasad Sah-P.W.3, Daskeshwar Yadav-P.W.5 and Kapildeo Bhagat-P.W.6 – have deposed in the court that they were travelling on Jamalpur-Howrah Express and they were informed that one of the miscreants who had boarded the train had snatched rifle from the constable-Jagdish Thakur and fired a pistol shot on his chest. 9. Dr. Dipak Kumar, who has conducted the postmortem examination, has found the following injuries on Jagdish Thakur: (i) Lacerated wound on left side of chest just latter to the asternum 1” below the level of nipple, ½”x ½” through chest cavity with inverted margin and directed towards right and slightly downward and backwards. (ii) Lacerated wound on right side of back measuring 2” inward to posterior auxillary line and 2” below the level of nipple with irregular inverted margin 1½” x 1½” communicating with injury no. (i). (iii) Multiple small abrasions on anterior chest wall around injury no. (i). 10. P.W. 7 has found one entry wound and one exit wound caused by fire arm and according to him death was caused between 6 to 24 hrs. from the time of postmortem examination. 11. The investigating officer who has been examined as P.W.8 has spoken about the place of occurrence, blood marks in front of the guard seat, inquest report, postmortem report and confession of the appellant. He has also spoken about TIP, in which P.W.2 and P.W.4 have identified the appellant. 12. In “Ronny alias Ronal James Alwaris and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1998) 3 SCC 625 , it has been held that if a witness had chance to interact with the accused or he had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused it would lend credence to his testimony and identification of an accused by such a witness for the first time in the court can be relied upon to record his conviction. 13. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that the miscreants had boarded the train at about 21:46 hrs. and the incident has taken place after 22:04 hrs. The informant thus had sufficient opportunity to notice physical features of the unknown persons who had boarded the train at Mirzachouki. In his fardbeyan he has given description of the miscreant who had fired pistol shot at Jagdish Thakur. and the incident has taken place after 22:04 hrs. The informant thus had sufficient opportunity to notice physical features of the unknown persons who had boarded the train at Mirzachouki. In his fardbeyan he has given description of the miscreant who had fired pistol shot at Jagdish Thakur. According to the informant the accused was aged about 30 years, colour whitish, height 5’ 5” and hair black. During cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.4, the defence has not challenged the description of the appellant as given by the informant in his fardbeyan. 14. In the above state of evidences, we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 who have identified the appellant in the court and from their evidence commission of crime by him on Jamalpur-Howrah Express on 04.09.2004 is proved. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 which has been sufficiently corroborated by other evidences, in our opinion, lapses during the investigation to recover the crime weapon, looted rifle and empty cartridges and non-production of TIP chart or non-examination of the Magistrate would not shake the foundation of the prosecution’s case. The manner of occurrence as described by the informant and complicity of the appellant in commission of the crime stand proved from the prosecution’s evidence. 15. In view of the above discussions and having examined the records of S.C. No. 136 of 2008, we find that the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in convicting the appellant under section 394 IPC and section 302/34 IPC. Normally, the appellate Court would not interfere with the view taken by the trial court which is a possible and plausible view and even if two views are possible; though in the facts of this case only one view has emerged, the view taken by the trial court should be accepted by the appellate Court. 16. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 568 of 2014 is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.