JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Santosh Yadav, Sita Ram Mahto (y) Sita Ram Yadav, Pintu Hazra, Louki Das, Santosh Das, Pinku Pandey Pankaj Pandey, Churaman. Yadav, Bodho Paswan @ Bodhu Paswan @ Diwakar Paswan and Bindu Ram were put on trial on the charge under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. They are convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo further imprisonment for six months. Except Sita Ram Mahto, Pintu Hazra and Louki Das, the remaining six accused were further charged under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and they are held guilty for retaining the looted articles in dacoity but no separate sentence under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was passed against them. 2. In this batch of criminal appeals, the aforesaid accused persons have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23rd September 2011 and the order of sentence dated 24th September 2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 2010. 3. A gang of dacoity entered the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria in the midnight of 12th September 2009 and plundered gold, silver and diamond ornaments, Pistols, DBBL gun, live cartridges and several mobile sets with SIM cards from his house. On a telephonic information received in Giridh (Town) PS, Upendra Singh who was the officer-in-charge of the police station came to the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria at village Pachamba and recorded his fardbeyan at 05:10 AM and on that basis Giridih (T) PS Case No. 254 of 2009 was lodged on 13th September 2009 against 15-20 unknown criminals. In course of the investigation on a secret information received by the investigating officer Bodho Paswan was arrested on 25th September 2009 from village Raichore in the district of Jamui. He gave a confessional statement before the investigating officer which was recorded around 08:00 AM the next day and that is how complicity of other appellants in the crime came to the knowledge of the investigating officer. Churaman Yadav was arrested on the same day; Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Bindu Ram were arrested on 16th October 2009; Pinku Pandey was arrested on 31st October 2009 and; Sita Ram Mahto was arrested on 30th March 2010. Churaman Yadav was arrested on the same day; Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Bindu Ram were arrested on 16th October 2009; Pinku Pandey was arrested on 31st October 2009 and; Sita Ram Mahto was arrested on 30th March 2010. Louki Das surrendered in the Court on 27th January 2010 and Pintu Hazra who in the meantime got himself involved in another crime was taken on remand and put on identification parade. 4. On the basis of disclosure statements made on 26th September 2009 by Bodho Paswan 28 articles were recovered from a talab near cremation ground between the village Kalyandih and "Narendrapur". On the same day, on the basis of disclosures made by Churaman Yadav looted articles were recovered from the house of Ishwari Ram Mohri, Bindu Ram and Santosh Yaday. A DBBL gun was seized around 02:15 PM from a barren compound belonging to Ishwari Ram Mohri at village Handadih; a Pistol with magazine and cash of Rs.7500/- from the house of Santosh Yadav and; one Pistol with magazine, 17 live cartridges, 7 live Pistol cartridges and cash of Rs.5000/- kept in silver box were seized from the house of Bindu Ram. On 16th October 2009, Blackberry mobile phone, Nokia mobile phone with two SIM cards and cash of Rs.5120/- were seized from the possession of Santosh Yadav; from the possession of Santosh Das three Nokia mobile phones with two SIM cards, Rs.420/- and Bajaj Discover motorcycle having Registration No. WB-07-8180 were seized and; from the possession of Pinku Pandey Nokia N-73 mobile phone and Samsung folding mobile phone with Airtel SIM card were recovered. 5. A charge-sheet was filed in the Court under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and, as noticed above, the appellants faced the trial on the charge of committing dacoity in the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and for dishonestly retaining the looted properties belonging to Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and his family members. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid charges against them. As many as 21 material objects were exhibited and several other documentary evidence including the confessional statements of Churaman Yadav and Bodho Paswan were laid in evidence by the prosecution. 6. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid charges against them. As many as 21 material objects were exhibited and several other documentary evidence including the confessional statements of Churaman Yadav and Bodho Paswan were laid in evidence by the prosecution. 6. Bodho Paswan set up a defence that he was arrested on 18th September 2009 and brutally assaulted by the police.According to him, the witnesses were called in the police station to identify him and also when he was taken to Najeevan Hospital. Pintu Hazra took a plea during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that while bringing him from Jamtara to Giridih, police took his photographs and showed them to the witnesses. Louki Das and Santosh Das also took a similar plea that they were shown to the witnesses before their production in the Court. Santosh Yadav took a plea that he was arrested on 08th October 2009, brutally assaulted by the police and forced to sign blank paper. He has also set up a defence that the witnesses were called in the police station and hospital to identify him. 7. Santosh Das and Santosh Yadav examined themselves in their defence and copies of judgments rendered in various criminal cases and TIP chart dated 21st November 2009 of Pinku Pandey were produced by the defence to set up a plea of false implication. 8. In Sessions Trial No. 120 of 2010, the learned trial Judge has held as under : "40. The prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case. There appears to be no doubt about the truth truthfulness and trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution witness. Their evidence are reliable and acceptable. There is no iota of any material on record either to disbelieve or discard the evidence of the witnesses. 41. Resultantly, I am satisfied to hold that on 12/13.09.2009 in the night the aforesaid accused persons committed dacoity in the house of the informant Rajendra Kumar Bagaria on the point of revolvar and after tiding the hands of the family members of the informant and on the point of revolvar they captured the informant and his family members and took away near about Rs. 3 lakhs cash, ornaments (diamond, gold, silver worth Rs. 3 lakhs cash, ornaments (diamond, gold, silver worth Rs. 20/25 lakhs), several mobiles, laptop, revolvar, pistol, DBBL gun live cartridges, other silver utensils of puja and accused Bodha Paswan was arrested from Jamui Bihar and on the basis of the confessional statement of Bodha Paswan remaining accused persons were arrested and they have also confessed before the police and several articles were recovered from the possession and house of the accused Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das, Pinku Pandey, Bodha Paswan, Bindu Ram and Churaman Yadav and accordingly the seizure list was prepared. The looted articles were produced in T.I.P and the witnesses have identified the said articles which have been marked material ext and produced before the court. The articles were recovered in presence of the independent witnesses who have proved the seizure of the articles. The 1.0 has well proved the place of occurrence and has also proved that the looted articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons and has also proved that the T.I.P was conducted and the articles were identified by the witnesses. The 1.0 has also proved that on the basis of confessional statement of Bodha Paswan and Churaman Yadav looted articles were recovered which is leading to recovery u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Accused Louki Das, Pintu Hazr, Bodha Paswan, Santosh Das, Churaman Yadav and Santosh Yadav were identified in T.l.P by the witnesses and they were also identified during course of trial in the court and accused Sita Ram Mahto, Bindu Ram and Pinku Pandey were also identified by the witnesses during trial in the court and witnesses have also identified all the accused persons in the electric light at the time of dacoity." 9. Except Bindu Ram and Sita Ram Mahto, other appellants were put on identification parades held on 21st November 2009, 05th March 2010 and 20th April 2010 in which Pinku Pandey was not identified by any witness. Pinku Pandey was arrested on 31St October 2009 but put on test identification on 21' November 2009 and more than one and a half years after his arrest he was identified in the Court by PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9. 10. Except Bindu Ram, Sita Ram Mahto and Pintu Hazra, the confessional statements of the other accused were recorded by the investigating officer on different dates. 10. Except Bindu Ram, Sita Ram Mahto and Pintu Hazra, the confessional statements of the other accused were recorded by the investigating officer on different dates. At that time, Pintu Hazra was in judicial custody in connection with Narayanpur PS Case No. 20 of 2010. He was taken on remand on 16th April 2010 to put him on TIP on 20th April 2010. PW6 identified him in TIP but PW9 did not identify him in TIP and PW7 who identified him in the Court by pointing towards him that he was holding Pistol was not called in TIP. 11. In what manner the six appellants were identified in TIPs conducted on 21' November 2009, 05th March 2010 and 20th April 2010 is depicted in a tabular form below: TIPs conducted on 21st November 2009: Accused Witness Result Santosh Das PW8 & PW9 Both identified the accused Bodho Paswan PW 8 & PW9 Both identified the accused Churaman Yadav & Santosh Yadav PW8 & PW9 Both identified the accused Pinku Pandey PW8 & PW9 Both did not identify the accused TIP conducted on or March 2010 Accused Witness Result Louki Das PW6 & PW9 Both identified the accused TIP conducted on 20th April 2010 Accused Witness Result Pintu Hazra PW6 & PW9 PW6 identified the accused 12. Mr. J. S. Singh, the learned counsel for Pinku Pandey, contended that identification of Pinku Pandey by the witnesses for the first time in Court cannot be made basis to convict him. 13. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for Pintu Hazra, contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 236 of the Jharkhand Police Manual for conducting TIP was not followed rather TIPs were held in piecemeal on several dates. The learned counsel would refer .to the decision in "Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLinc SC 689” to submit that the evidence of TIP was vitiated on account of the procedural flaws and cannot be used against Pintu Hazra. 14. A TIP which is conducted in course of the investigation is an important step taken by the investigating officer to identify the unknown perpetrator of a crime. 14. A TIP which is conducted in course of the investigation is an important step taken by the investigating officer to identify the unknown perpetrator of a crime. When conducted in a congenial environment and at an early stage of the investigation, but, may not always be at the earliest point in time, provides assurance to the investigating officer that he is proceeding on the right lines - whether or not the witnesses have identified the suspect in TIP. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute requiring the investigating agency to hold TIP but once held the evidence regarding identification of an accused in TIP is admitted in the trial under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, though not as a substantive piece of evidence. The evidence of identification of an accused in TIP substantially strengthens dock identification of an unknown accused by the witness. But the necessity of a prior test identification to corroborate identification of an unknown accused in the Court is a rule of prudence and not an absolute rule. In " Pop v. The Queen, [2003] UKPC 40' the Privy Council has held that even in absence of a prior identification parade a dock identification is admissible. 15. In "Umesh Chandra" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9. A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused. Mere identification in the test identification parade therefore cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. 10. But more important than that, the test identification parade being a part of the investigation, has to be proved by the prosecution as having been held in accordance with law. The onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law. It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises. The onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law. It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises. If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove. In the present case, a Magistrate is stated to have conducted the TIP. The Magistrate has not been examined. No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined. The only evidence available is that of PW-4 the Station House Officer that during the investigation he TIP was held in the District Jail, Nainital and he identifies the proceedings in the Court. The identification of the proceedings is irrelevant as obviously he could not have been present during the TIP. The TIP, a part of the investigation, therefore cannot be said to have been proved much less that it was held in accordance with the law. Secondly there cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused." 16. The dacoity was committed late in the night and in such cases it may take a little more time for the prosecution to collect evidence to reach the real culprit. The delay in holding TIP was a mistake on the part of the investigating officer and such delay on its own may not be sufficient to hold that the evidence of TIP has been rendered useless. The learned trial Judge noticed that the accused were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. Six of them gave confessional statements to the investigating officer and looted articles were recovered at the instance of five of them or from their possession. They were put on TIP inside the jail on the application moved by the investigating officer. The learned trial Judge has held that TIPs were conducted following the necessary formalities and delay in holding TIP has been explained by the prosecution. 17. The learned trial Judge has held thus: "38. ....In this regard DW1 and DW2 who are the accused in this case have clearly stated that they were shown to the witnesses prior to their arrest and they were kept in S.P Kothi uptill 8/10 days. 17. The learned trial Judge has held thus: "38. ....In this regard DW1 and DW2 who are the accused in this case have clearly stated that they were shown to the witnesses prior to their arrest and they were kept in S.P Kothi uptill 8/10 days. If the evidence of the D. W.1 and 2 are taken into consideration then I find that they were produced before the C.J.M for their remand and both the D. W.1 and D. W.2 have clearly stated in para 2 of their evidence that at the time of remand they have not given in writing that they were shown to the witnesses by the police when they were detained in the S.P residence. Thus the defence of the accused persons that they were shown to the witnesses by the police before T.I. Parade became falsify. Thus in my view the T.I.P was conducted in proper way. The accused persons were identified during T.I. Parade as well as before the court. There is no delay in holding T.I.P and the same has been explained by the prosecution. P.W.10 and P.W.12 have well proved the way of conducting T.I.P and they have proved the Ti Chart which have been marked Ext. 8, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3 and 8/4. The prosecution witnesses P.W.6, 7, 8 andP. W.9 have also identified all the aforesaid accused persons in the court during trial and they have clearly stated that they have identified the accused persons in the electric light at the time of occurrence. Thus the witnesses have identified the accused persons who committed the dacoity at the time of occurrence." 18. In different countries the identification parades are called by different terminology, such as, police lineup, police line ins, six-pack etc. In the United States, United Kingdom and other countries there are additional safeguards. Such as, a witness is informed that the lineup may not include the suspect and that he should not necessarily choose one of the persons from the lineup. In India, there is a set pattern for conduct of TIPs and in some states rules for TIPs are also framed. The identification parades conducted in India are a kind of common police lineup in which several persons of similar height, body-built and complexion are mixed up with the suspect to provide a check on the risk of the witnesses pointing to someone who may resemble the accused. The identification parades conducted in India are a kind of common police lineup in which several persons of similar height, body-built and complexion are mixed up with the suspect to provide a check on the risk of the witnesses pointing to someone who may resemble the accused. In the present case, evidence of PW10 and PW12 who monitored the identification parades provides sufficient information that TIPs were held adhering to the established procedures, and Rule 236 of the Jharkhand Police Manual which is in general terms was followed. 19. PW10 was Judicial Magistrate posted at Giridih between 05th March 2010 to 20th April 2010. He conducted identification parades for (i) Louki Das on 05th March 2010 and (ii) Parmeshwar Hazra @ Pintu Hazra on 20th April 2010. He proved his signature over both the TIP charts vide Exhibits-8 and 8/1. He was put to searching questions as regards conduct of identification parades but the defence could not point out any irregularity in TIP. As PW12, another Judicial Magistrate testified in the Court that he conducted identification parades on 21st November 2009 with respect to (i) Churaman Yadav and Santosh Yadav (ii) Bodho Paswan (iii) Santosh Das and (iv) Pinku Pandey. 20. Both PW10 and PW12 were questioned about the procedure followed in holding TIP, and the suggestions put to them were intended to elicit from them whether there was any possibility of the witnesses glancing at the suspect(s) before TIP. 21. For a better appreciation of the defence set up by the appellants, we may refer to the evidence of one of the Judicial Magistrates who conducted TIPs. In the cross-examination, PW10 gave the following evidence in the Court : 2. I had no previous acquaintance with the witnesses and I did not know the suspects from before. 3. I could recognize the witnesses when I received the records with order of C.J.M for conducting TIP. 4. 1 did not go to the jail' with the witnesses. 5. The witnesses gave brief description of the occurrence. 6. The investigating officer did not enter the jail premises. 7. Special identification mark was given to the suspects after verifying their name and address recorded in the jail register and then TIP was conducted. 8. There was identification mark and photograph of the persons in jail register. 9. Total nine persons including the suspects were present who were lined up for TIP. 10. 7. Special identification mark was given to the suspects after verifying their name and address recorded in the jail register and then TIP was conducted. 8. There was identification mark and photograph of the persons in jail register. 9. Total nine persons including the suspects were present who were lined up for TIP. 10. The suspects were mixed with under-trial prisoners with similar complexion, physical stretcher and common dress and then TIP was conducted. 11. For identification purpose cross mark was put on palm of the suspects. 11. The suspects and others were standing in normal condition. 12. The witnesses were outside the jail premises while preparation for TIP was going on. 13. The witnesses were brought inside the jail premises by jail employee on my direction. 14. After identification by one witness was completed then second witness was called for identification. 15. This is not correct to say that the witnesses could recognize the accused in the office while preparation for TIP was going on. 16. This is not correct to say that TIP was conducted for completing formalities for test identification. 17. Declined. 22. In the context of the plea raised by the appellants that their identification in the Court by the witnesses is substantially weakened by delay in conducting TIP, we may indicate that there is no rule of law prescribing a period within which a test identification must be held to identify the suspects of crime. In "Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2004) 13 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the period within which a test identification parade must be held and the matter must be left to the wisdom of the Court of fact which would consider all aspects of the matter in the light of the evidence on record before pronouncing upon the acceptability or rejection of such identification. Bodho Paswan, Pintu Hazra, Louki Das, Santosh Das and Santosh Yadav set up a defence to challenge their identification in TIP on the ground that they were shown to the witnesses before TIP was conducted. But what appears from the records is that these appellants did not make any grievance before or after TIPs were held and the investigating officer has denied suggestions put by the defence in this regard. But what appears from the records is that these appellants did not make any grievance before or after TIPs were held and the investigating officer has denied suggestions put by the defence in this regard. They raised such a plea when they were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but there is no material on record to corroborate the defence set up by them. In the circumstances, their identification by the witnesses in TIP may be accepted to corroborate their identification in the Court. But what value should be attached to their identification by the witnesses in TIP would be examined in the context of other evidence on record. 23. All four eyewitnesses who identified the appellants in Court are competent witnesses. The dock identification of an accused is appreciated by the Court in the circumstances of the case and not in isolation. PW6, PW7, PW8, and PW9 are inmates of the house who identified the appellants in the Court - except PW7 others were called to identify the accused in TIP. These witnesses were present in the house on the night of 12' September 2009 and each one of them faced the dacoits in their room. They have witnessed the dacoits plundering the valuables by breaking open boxes and Almirah in their rooms. 24. PW8, the informant, gave his examination-in-chief in the Court on 08th July 2011, stating thus; 1. The incident took place in the night of 12/13.09.2009. I was sleeping in my room. At about 12:00 O'clock in the night, someone knocked at my door. When I opened the door, I saw that two-three persons had taken my nephew Abhishek Bagadia in their custody at gunpoint and 5-6 other criminals were also standing there. As soon as I opened the door, criminals entered into my room and pointed pistol at me and assaulted me with fist. They broke almirah of the room. They broke shelf and took out about Rs. 50,000/- cash, my licensee pistol, about 12-15 cartridges, silver utensils, ring, gold chain, other jewelleries and my wife and daughter's gold jewelleries for ear, nose and neck, watch, mobile etc. from the room. The criminals forced me out of the room and Abhishek was also with me. After taking us in custody by intimidating us, they got opened the door of my brother'Chandan Kumar Bagadia. from the room. The criminals forced me out of the room and Abhishek was also with me. After taking us in custody by intimidating us, they got opened the door of my brother'Chandan Kumar Bagadia. When he opened the door, 5-6 criminate entered into his room, they looted articles and assaulted him. His two-barrel licensee gun, watch, mobile, sister-in-law's jewelleries for nose, ear and neck, cash were looted. They brought Abhishek and me to the room of my elder brother Dr. Deepak Kumar BaSiadia and got the room opened by forcing us to call him. As soon as the room opened, the criminals assaulted my brother Dr. Deepak Bagadia and robbed the belongings of my sister-in-law. Thereafter, the criminals came to the ground floor of the house and got my father's room opened by intimidating us, misbehaved with my father and looted the articles from his room. The criminals went upstairs as my brother Dr. Deepak Bagadia was not sleeping in his room because air conditioning of his room was not working and therefore he was sleeping in his daughter's room. The criminals got his room opened by force and ransacked it. They looted cash, jewelleries. licensee revolver, licensee pistol, mobile,watch etc. from my brother's room. They took away silver utensils. I identified the face of criminals in electric light. At that time, there was light as electric bulb was glowing. The criminals locked allfamily members in the kitchen and fled away with the looted articles. When the guard Lalchand opened the door we could come out. Shanti, our maid-servant was at house and she used to sleep at the main gate. She in connivance with criminals opened the door and allowed them to enter the house. When the criminals came at the ground floor then Shanti again indicated them to go to upper floor and then the room of my elder brother Deepak Bagadia was opened. It was Shanti Devi who hatched a conspiracy for robbery. She did not open the door of kitchen despite she was present there. The police came there upon information and my fardbeyan was recorded. The Inspector-cum- Officer-in-Charge of Town Police Station recorded my statement and it is under his pen and signature. I identify it. It also bears my signature. Fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-7'. She did not open the door of kitchen despite she was present there. The police came there upon information and my fardbeyan was recorded. The Inspector-cum- Officer-in-Charge of Town Police Station recorded my statement and it is under his pen and signature. I identify it. It also bears my signature. Fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-7'. Shoe, Lungi, plastic string, Hexa Blade and towel, which were in plastic bag, were seized from my premises in the morning. It's seizure list was prepared which bears my signature. Mark it as Exhibit-5/2. A bomb wrapped in Sutli (Sutli bomb) was also recovered from my house on the same day. The seizure list bears my signature and it was prepared near verandah. Mark it as Exhibit-'5'. I was called to identify the articles in Giridih Block in which I had identified the Material object. It's paper bears my signature. This is marked as Exhibit-'6/3'. 1 was called for T.I.P. in jail. 1 went there and identified four criminals. The witness identified all nine accused persons who are present and says that all of them were involved in committing robbery. I indentified my household articles. This is the same pistol which was released from the Court and was recovered by the police. Mark it as Material Exhibit-III. 25. PW8 denied the suggestion that he could identify the appellants in the Court because the accused were present in the dock and further denied that during his restatement the police showed him photographs of the accused or while they were in police remand. He admitted in the cross-examination that nine persons were included in TIP but only one of them was the accused. 26. Others have also tendered almost similar accounts of the entire episode and whatever discrepancy occurred in their testimony was on account of the fact that they all were not together rather in their own rooms when dacoity was committed. The credibility and trustworthiness of a witness are not corroded due to minor inconsistency in his evidence which may appear due to error of observation, lapse of time etc. at the time when his deposition is recorded in the Court. We, therefore, propose to deal with other evidence only briefly. 27. PW6 stated in the Court that (i) he went to jail for TIP after 5-6 months, and (II) does not remember who were present in TIP. at the time when his deposition is recorded in the Court. We, therefore, propose to deal with other evidence only briefly. 27. PW6 stated in the Court that (i) he went to jail for TIP after 5-6 months, and (II) does not remember who were present in TIP. He denied that the accused were shown to him by the police, and that police took photographs of the accused and showed them to him. 28. PW7 was not called for TIP and he identified the appellant Pintu Hazra for the first time in the Court. He identified Pintu Hazra as the criminal who pointed a Pistol at him. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not remember the criminal who held PW6 and PW8 at gunpoint. He denied that he saw the accused at any other place. He has further stated that the police did not inform him about TIP. 29. PW9 admitted in the Court that some of the accused who were identified by him in the Court were not identified by him in TIP or they were not put on TIP. He further admitted that he could not remember the name of the accused whom he had identified in TIP. 30. PW11 has claimed in the Court that she identified her belongings which were looted by the dacoits and denied that the dacoits had covered their face with white cloth. 31. The probative value of the evidence of a witness who identifies an unknown criminal for the first time in the Court after a long time gap is substantially diminished and, therefore, it is considered that it is not safe to record conviction solely on the basis of such evidence. The primary reason seems to be that when the accused is present in the Court and the prosecution asserts that he is the one who committed the crime it is for all to see-and more importantly there is always a possibility of the witness identifying the accused sitting in the dock and thereby increasing the risk of a wrong identification, and that is where comes the necessity of a prior test identification to corroborate identification of an unknown accused in the Court. The failure of the investigating officer not to put Sita Ram Mahto and Bindu Ram on TIP, and PW8 and PW9 not identifying Pinku Pandey in TIP are no doubt relevant considerations and may assume materiality provided the prosecution case against these appellants is not supported by any other independent evidence. But the whole of the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved because one of the appellants was not put on TIP or identified by any witness in TIP. By now it is well settled that conviction of the accused can be recorded solely on the basis of his identification in the Court by the witnesses, provided the evidence of dock identification of the accused admits no doubt about his complicity in the crime. In some cases, the evidence of identification may not by itself be sufficient to prove guilt of an accused but when it is supported by other independent evidence such as recovery of looted articles, identification of the accused would assume character of determinative factor. 32. As a whole, the prosecution case is premised on a footing that (i) the appellants were identified in the Court (ii) looted articles were recovered at their pointing or from their possession (iii) they suffered disclosure statements truthfulness of which was established through recovery of looted articles and (iv) they failed to explain possession of the spoils of dacoity. 33. Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yadav suffered disclosure statements on 26th September 2009 and at their instance and pointing out huge quantities of looted articles were recovered from different places. The confessional statement of Santosh Das was recorded on 16th October 2009 at 12:30 hrs. and from his possession Nokia 6303C mobile phone, Nokia 7210C mobile phone with SIM No. 9163962471, Nokia 1112 mobile phone with Airtel SIM No. 9883720583 and Bajaj Discover motorcycle having Registration No. WB-07-8180 and Rs.420/- were recovered in presence of PW3 and Santosh Rout. A Nokia N-73 mobile phone was recovered from possession of Pinku Pandey around 09:00 AM on 31st October 2009 and his confessional statement was recorded at 11:00 AM. The seizure-memo was marked as Exhibit-20 and the recovered Nokia N-73 mobile phone was identified by PW6. The confessional statement of Santosh Yadav was recorded on 16th October 2009 at 12:30 hrs. and from his possession Blackberry mobile phone, Nokia mobile phone with SIM Nos. 9572633103 and 9939828512 and Rs. The seizure-memo was marked as Exhibit-20 and the recovered Nokia N-73 mobile phone was identified by PW6. The confessional statement of Santosh Yadav was recorded on 16th October 2009 at 12:30 hrs. and from his possession Blackberry mobile phone, Nokia mobile phone with SIM Nos. 9572633103 and 9939828512 and Rs. 5120/- were recovered in presence of PW3 and Santosh Rout. The Blackberry mobile phone recovered from Santosh Yadav was identified by PW6. 34. The prosecution called PW 1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 to prove recovery of the looted articles on pointing of Bodho Paswan, and Churaman Yadav and from the possession of Santosh Yadav and Santosh Das. PW1 had proved seizure of (i) one Pistol and Rs.7500/- from the house of Santosh Yadav vide Exhibit-12;(ii) Pistol with magazine, silver box with photo of Ganesh jee, cartridges and Rs.5000/- from the house of Bindu Ram and; (iii)DBBL gun from the house of Ishwari Ram Mohri on pointing of Churaman Yaday. PW2 and PW5 have deposed in the Court that in their presence a plastic bag containing several articles concealed in a pond at Narendrapur were recovered by the investigating officer. PW2 has further stated that the pond (talab) is at a barren place and the plastic bag vide Exhibit-10 was recovered from the pond at pointing of Bodho Paswan who was present there. PW3 who is a private teacher at Pachamba has stated that in his presence one Blackberry mobile phone, one Nokia mobile phone and Rs.5120/- in cash were seized on 16th October 2009 from the possession of Santosh Yadav near Bananchal College. On the same day, three Nokia mobile phones, one black colour Discover motorcycle and Rs.420/- in cash which Santosh Das was possessing at that time were seized by the investigating officer. PW5 and his friend Dharmendra Kumar Dubey were heading towards Pachamba High School on 26th September 2009 at around 11.00 AM-12.00 noon and they were brought by the police to a pond near Narendrapur. At that time Bodho Paswan was with the police and on his pointing one plastic bag containing mobile phones, empty cartridges of rifle, silver articles etc. total 28 in number was recovered from the pond. 35. PW1 stated in his cross-examination that he lived at a distance of about 1/2 KM from Handadih, which is a thickly populated village. At that time Bodho Paswan was with the police and on his pointing one plastic bag containing mobile phones, empty cartridges of rifle, silver articles etc. total 28 in number was recovered from the pond. 35. PW1 stated in his cross-examination that he lived at a distance of about 1/2 KM from Handadih, which is a thickly populated village. PW2 has stated that he lived at a distance of about 1/2 KM from the pond and the pond is near a barren place. PW3 stated that Pachamba is about 10 KMs far away from the place of recovery from possession of Santosh Yadav and Santosh Das. PW5 has also stated that the pond from where a plastic bag containing several articles was recovered is about 1 KM from his house. On the basis of theSe statements, a plea is raised by the learned counsels for the appellants that PW 1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 are chance witnesses who failed to explain their presence at the time of seizure and, therefore, the prosecution cannot rely on the so-called seizures made at the instance of the appellants. 36. There is no law of universal application that a chance witness cannot be a reliable and trustworthy witness. All that is required in law is to find whether the prosecution has satisfactorilyexplained the presence of the chance witness at the time and place from where recoveries are made. In "Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 " the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India yet the chance witness has to reasonably explain his presence at that particular. moment. PW1 has stated that he knows the people of Handadih as they would also come to Pachamba Bazar (market). He has denied the suggestion by the defence that he was brought to the pond by the police. However, PW2 has stated that he had gone to the pond with the police. PW3 has also denied that he went to the pond with the police. PW5 has stated that he is a neighbour of Dr. Deepak Kumar Bagaria and stays just 10-20 furlong away from his house. The investigating officer gave an elaborate account of the seizures made by him from different places at the instance of Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yadav, and from the possession of Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Pinku Pandey. PW5 has stated that he is a neighbour of Dr. Deepak Kumar Bagaria and stays just 10-20 furlong away from his house. The investigating officer gave an elaborate account of the seizures made by him from different places at the instance of Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yadav, and from the possession of Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Pinku Pandey. The pond near Narendrapur was at a barren place (sunsan jagah) and the investigating officer proceeded to recover looted articles soon after taking the confessional statement of Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yaday. In the circumstances, we see no infirmity in the evidence of a witness who accompanied the investigating officer and attested the recovery from the pond. 37. The looted articles which were recovered from different places at pointing of the accused were put on TIP on 10th October 2009 and 24th November 2009. PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW11 along with three other female members who, however, did not come to the witness-box were called by the prosecution on 10th October 2009 to identify the looted articles. They all are the family members of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria. We are of the opinion that the Court can place implicit reliance on the identification of looted articles by these witnesses. PW6 and PW7 have participated in TIP conducted in two sessions on 24th November 2009 and have identified four sets of mobile phone and cash. As many as five witnesses have testified in the Court that in TIP held on 10th October 2009 they identified (i) gold, silver and diamond coins, jewellery, utensils and box, (ii) silver utensils, (iii) two Pistols, (iv) DBBL gun, (v) live Pistol cartridge, (vi) live rifle cartridge, (vii) old mobile phone, (viii) two wrist watches, (ix) bunch of keys, (x) spectacles (xi) table watch, (xii) purse with cash and (xiii) other articles as per seizure-memo. PW6 has further stated that he identified Nokia N-73 and Blackberry-8830 mobile phones and Rs. 5120/- in cash in TIP held on 24th November, 2009. The investigating officer stated in the Court that the mobile phones were duly identified by PW6 and PW7. 38. The prosecution has proved that several articles which were concealed in the house of Bindu Ram, Ishwari Ram Mohri and Santosh Yadav were recovered on the disclosures made by Churaman Yaday. 5120/- in cash in TIP held on 24th November, 2009. The investigating officer stated in the Court that the mobile phones were duly identified by PW6 and PW7. 38. The prosecution has proved that several articles which were concealed in the house of Bindu Ram, Ishwari Ram Mohri and Santosh Yadav were recovered on the disclosures made by Churaman Yaday. Though Prakash Nath Mishra who was also a witness to the seizures vide Exhibits-12, 13 and 14 was not produced during the trial, PW1 came to the Court and identified his signatures over these seizure-memos. His evidence in the Court is supported by the investigating officer who gave a graphic description of a seizure made by him from the house of Bindu Ram, Ishwari Ram Mohri and Santosh Yadav. 39. Santosh Rout, Prabhat Nag and Abhishek Krishna are the other witnesses who were present at the time of seizure of Nokia 6303C mobile phone, Nokia 7210C mobile phone with SIM No. 9163962471, Nokia 1112 mobile phone with Airtel SIM No. 9883720583 and Bajaj Discover motorcycle having Registration No.WB-07-8180, Blackberry mobile phone, Nokia mobile phone with SIM Nos. 9572633103, and 9939828512, Nokia N-73 mobile phone, Samsung folding mobile phone and Airtel SIM No.9546094940 and cash of Rs.420/- and Rs.5120/-. These witnesses did not come to the witness box but recovery of these articles at the pointing and from possession of the respective appellants cannot be discitrded as being doubtful. Such huge number of articles have remained unexplained and the appellants did not claim them. It is unbelievable that such a large number of articles were planted by the; police to fabricate evidence against the appellants. Seven appellants have criminal antecedents and few articles recovered from their possession appear to be spoils of other crimes committed by them. 40. In "Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC 784 " the recoveries of polythene pouches of wine, money, cloths, chains and bangles were made at the disclosure of the accused, though he was not identified in TIP. The bloodstained sticks which were used in beating the inmates of the house and the FSL report were taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that non-identification of the accused does not mean that the prosecution case was on false footing. 41. The bloodstained sticks which were used in beating the inmates of the house and the FSL report were taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that non-identification of the accused does not mean that the prosecution case was on false footing. 41. The confessional statements of Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yadav are proved through the investigating officer and a part of their confessions is usable by the prosecution. 42. The use of confession in law can be traced since the time of Tudors and Stuarts. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence (rd ed.), Vol. 2, p. 131, has observed that atleast till middle of 17' century use of torture in extracting confessions was common and confessions were used as evidence without scruple. Blackstone has characterized confessions as "weakest and most suspicious of all testimonies". The Latin phrase "habemus optimum testem confitentem reum" which means "we have the best witness, confessing defendant" was the guiding thought at that time but the use of confession was not without any restriction. 43. Cave J. has said, "The Queen v. Thompson" : (1893), 17 Cox’s Criminal Cases 641" By that law, to be admissible, a confession must be free and voluntary. If it proceeds from remorse and a desire to make rep ration for crime, it is admissible. If it flows from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible....". 44. A layman's p ercep tion that "he would never have confessed unless he was guilty" is not recognized under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act excludes the whole of the confession, if it was obtained by an inducement, threat or promise and proof of not only the admission of the offence but also the admission of every other incriminating fact such as the motive, the preparation and the subsequent conduct. Section 25 makes confesSion to apolice officer inadmissible against a person accused of any offence and section 26 provides that no confession by a person in the custody of a police officer shall be proved unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The prohibitions imposed by sections 25 and 26 are presumably reflection of apprehension of the law makers that a person under the influence of police or coercion or undue pressure may be induced to confess the crime. The prohibitions imposed by sections 25 and 26 are presumably reflection of apprehension of the law makers that a person under the influence of police or coercion or undue pressure may be induced to confess the crime. But these provisions of the Indian Evidence Act provide protection to an accused not for the reason that the law presumes confession of the accused to be untrue and that is the reason an exception has been carved out in section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by sections 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not which relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information provided by the accused while in custody. 45. A remarkable feature of this case is that in the trial the appellants did challenge their confessional statements and at no point in time they retracted their confessional statements. The truthfulness of their disclosures is established by recovery of looted articles and, therefore, the Court can also look into the confessional statement to unearth the real story behind the crime. In "Sandeep v. State of U.P, (2012) 6 SCC 107 " the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that inculpatory part of disclosure statement of an accused which does not implicate him directly can be looked into to unearth the truth. 46. The large number of recoveries made on disclosure or from the possession of Bodho Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Piriku Pandey are not explained by them. The recovery of looted articles was made from a pond and house of Ishwari Ram Mohri and Jageshwar Singh @ Jageshwar Turi who were not suspects of the crime. The looted articles are concealed in the pond and in the house of Ishwari Ram Mohri and Jageshwar Singh came to the knowledge of the investigating officer for the first time when Bodho Paswan and Churaman Yadav made disclosures before him. The recoveries made from the possession of Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Pinku Pandey are not explained by them and many articles recovered from their possession were looted from the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria. 47. The evidence against Bindu Ram and Sita Ram Mahto is that they were identified in the Court by the witnesses but they were not put on TIP. 47. The evidence against Bindu Ram and Sita Ram Mahto is that they were identified in the Court by the witnesses but they were not put on TIP. A silver box, pistol, live cartridges and ladies purse with Rs. 5000/- were recovered from the house of Bindu Ram at the pointing of Churaman Yaday. Bindu Ram did not suffer a confessional statement and any looted article was not seized from his possession or at his pointing. Though the aforesaid articles were recovered from his house, it is not proved that he had dishonestly received or retained those articles believing the same to be stolen property. The investigating officer admitted in the cross-examination that a copy of seizure-memo was not provided to Bindu Ram or any member of his family and arrayed him as an accused only on the basis of seizures made from his house. He further admitted that he could not lay hand on any other evidence against Sita Ram Mahto except confessional statement of his son Churaman Yadav who said about his complicity in the crime. 48. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to hold that identification of Bindu Ram and Sita Ram Mahto by the witnesses for the first time in the Court is not sufficient to hold them guilty and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 665 of 2011 and 677 of 2011 are allowed. 49. The offence of dacoity is a form of robbery in which five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery. The offence of robbery essentially involves either theft or extortion. Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code which defines robbery provides that if the offender at the time of committing the extortion puts a person in fear of instant hurt or death, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, he commits robbery. The prosecution evidence is that Bodho Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das, Louki Das, Pintu Hazra and Pinku Pandey entered the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria and looted cash, ornaments and other valuables at gunpoint. Several mobile phones belonging to the family members of the informant were seized from their possession and a huge quantity of ornaments, other valuables, guns, cartridges etc. looted from the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria were recovered from different places at their pointing. Several mobile phones belonging to the family members of the informant were seized from their possession and a huge quantity of ornaments, other valuables, guns, cartridges etc. looted from the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria were recovered from different places at their pointing. The possession of looted articles in dacoity further fastens criminal liability under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code on Bodho Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Santosh Das and Pinku Pandey and, therefore, they were rightly convicted under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 50. Santosh Das raised a plea of juvenility in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.626 of 2011 and a report has been received from the Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih that he was a juvenile as on 13th September 2009. Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned Spl. PP, referred to the order dated 05th July 2017 passed in EN 262 A'/17 titled "Santosh Das v. The State of Jharkhand" to submit that age determination by the Juvenile Justice Board was erroneous and cannot be considered to extend the benefits under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to Santosh Das. 51. In the enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board, the School Register of Bal Vikash Vidyalaya, Leda was produced and proved through the Principal of the School. The Register was not properly numbered and admission entry of Santosh Das and his other details were made on the inner side of back cover of the Register which was not even numbered. The Board held that the record of the Register cannot be relied upon as genuine entry of admission of Santosh Das in the school first attended by him. Therefore, in absence of the evidence as prescribed under the rules medical examination of Santosh Das was conducted on 23rd June 2017 and the Medical Board determined his age between 24 to 26 years. 52. The Juvenile Justice Board has held as under: "Considering above fact and circumstance of the case and as per the enquiry in absence of either of the document as prescribed clauses (a)(!), (ii), (iii) and the document on the record first attendance register not reliable, medical opinion of the duly constituted medical . 52. The Juvenile Justice Board has held as under: "Considering above fact and circumstance of the case and as per the enquiry in absence of either of the document as prescribed clauses (a)(!), (ii), (iii) and the document on the record first attendance register not reliable, medical opinion of the duly constituted medical . board by which the age of the applicant is assessed as up to 24 to 26 years on 23/6/17 calculating from the lower side within the margin of one year as per prescribed rule on the date of occurrence i.e. 13/09/2009 from 24th year on dated 23/6/17 of the applicant Santosh Das was of 17 years 09 month and 11 day's below 18 years and who was not completed eighteen years so he is a juvenile as per section 2(k) of the Act and hence the Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih arrive at the conclusion that the applicant Santosh Das who is appellant in criminal appeal no.626 of 2011 was juvenile at the date of occurrence as on dated 13 September of year 2009." 53. The records reveal that the Medical Board recorded a finding as regards age of Santosh Das on the basis of his physical features and X-ray reports. In the first place, no proper test was conducted which could have given a fair idea about age of the appellant. The X-ray reports do not provide useful guiding factor for determining age of a person. The X-ray ossification test can by no means be so infallible and accurate a test as to indicate the correct number of years and days of a person's life. The Juvenile Justice Board has taken a mechanical view regarding age of Santosh Das and accepted the opinion of Medical Board based on physical features and X-ray reports. 54. The report of Medical Board is extracted below: OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER. HAZARIBAG Medical board held on 23/06/17 (Friday) under the chairmanship of Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical officer, Hazaribag and other members of the board are Dr. Shankar Ram Dangi (Radiologist), Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, M.0, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, Dr. Vijay Shankar, (Ortho), Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Dental Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, Dr. Shivani Yadav, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Hazaribag and Dr. Shankar Ram Dangi (Radiologist), Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, M.0, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, Dr. Vijay Shankar, (Ortho), Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Dental Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, Dr. Shivani Yadav, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Hazaribag and Dr. S.P. Gupta to access the age of Santosh Das, Giridih Nagar PS Case No. 254/09 E.No. 262 A'/17 asked by Manju Kumari, Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Giridih vide Letter no. 23/17 dated 14/6/17 & Superintendent, LNJPN, Hazaribag vide letter no. 3519 dated 23/6/17. Name — Santosh Das Brought & Identified by Teeth 8+8 Hawaldar Ghamandi Thakur, Police Kendra, Hazaribag 8+8 Upper lip hair — Black Auxilliary hair— Black Pubic Hair — Black M.I 1. A black flashy Mole on right side of cheek 2. A black Mole on left side of chest. X-Ray — AP View of Wrist and elbow, AP View of Pelvis & Lateral View of Sternum (MB no 78 dated 23/6/17) Show Dated 23/6/17 1. Elbow-Fused 2. Epiphysis of lower end of radius and ulna — Fused 3. Epiphysis of greater and lesser trochanter — Fused 4. Epiphysis of iliac crest bone — Fused 5. Epiphysis of ischial Tuberosity— Fused 6. Stemomanubrium Joint — Not Fused 7. Segments of Sternum — Fused 8. Xiphystemum Joint— Not Properly Visualised We members of board unanimously came to conclusion on basis of physical, dental and radiological finding the age of Santosh Das is 24-26 yrs. (twenty four to twenty six yrs.) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Dr.Shankar Ram Dangi (Radiologist ) Sadar Hospital HZB Dr.Mukesh Kumar Mehta (Dental Surgeon) Sadar Hospital HZB Dr. Vijay Shankar (Medical Officer) Sadar Hospital, HZB Dr. A. K. Singh (Medical Officer) Sadar Hospital, HZB Civil Surgeon Hazaribag Letter no. 1248 dated 28/06/17 Copy to — Superintendent, LNJPN, Central Jail, Hazaribag vide letter no 3519 dated 23/6/17 Sd/- Civil Surgeon Hazaribag 55. In "Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 5 SCC 201 ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases involving heinous crimes it is duty of the Courts to scrutinize plea of juvenility with extreme caution to ensure that the same is not employed to escape punishment. The materials collected in course of investigation disclose that Santosh Das has criminal antecedent and he was involved in three criminal cases of serious nature. There is no other evidence as regards age of Santosh Das - oral or documentary. The materials collected in course of investigation disclose that Santosh Das has criminal antecedent and he was involved in three criminal cases of serious nature. There is no other evidence as regards age of Santosh Das - oral or documentary. Even taking his age on the lower side within the margin of one year the age of Santosh Das just falls short of less than three months from 18 years. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to agree with opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih that as on 13th September 2009 Santosh Das was a juvenile. 56. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 679 of 2011, 680 of 2011, 626 of 2011 and 598 of 2011 are dismissed. 57. Louki Das and Pintu Hazra were identified in TIP. They took a plea that they were shown to the witnesses before their production in the Court but the records reveal that Louki Das had surrendered in the Court on 27th January 2010 and Pintu Hazra did not lead any evidence to corroborate his defence which was taken for the first time when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are identified in Court by as many as four witnesses who are family members of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria. The dock identification of Louki Das and Pintu Hazra is corroborated by their identification in TIP and on that basis their involvement in dacoity committed in the house of Rajendra Kumar Bagaria in the night of 12th September 2009 is proved. Furthermore, the defence set up by them has remained in the realm of a gambit as the investigating officer was not cross-examined by them on this point. Although no seizure was made from their possession or at their pointing and Pintu Hazra did not suffer a disclosure statement, we hold that they were rightly convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 666 of 2011 and 754 of 2013 are dismissed. 58. The learned Spl. PP and APP have stated that Bindu Ram is in jail while the other appellants Pinku Pandey @ Pankaj Pandey, Santosh Das, Louki Das, Sita Ram Mahto @ Sita Ram Yadav, Bodho Paswan @ Bodhu Paswan @ Diwakar Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav and Pintu Hazra are on bail. 59. 58. The learned Spl. PP and APP have stated that Bindu Ram is in jail while the other appellants Pinku Pandey @ Pankaj Pandey, Santosh Das, Louki Das, Sita Ram Mahto @ Sita Ram Yadav, Bodho Paswan @ Bodhu Paswan @ Diwakar Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav and Pintu Hazra are on bail. 59. The bail-bonds furnished by appellants Pinku Pandey @ Pankaj Pandey, Santosh Das, Louki Das, Bodho Paswan @ Bodhu Paswan @ Diwakar Paswan, Churaman Yadav, Santosh Yadav and Pintu Hazra are cancelled. They shall serve the sentence. 60. The appellant Sita Ram Mahto @ Sita Ram Yadav is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 61. The appellant Bindu Ram shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 62. Let the lower-Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 63. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.