JUDGMENT : Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 and 333 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. Prosecution case unfolds the tragic reality of our democratic polity, where elections in parts of the country are held under the shadow of threat from extremist groups opposing the democratic process. 3. On 7th May, 1996, police patrolling party was on patrolling duty in Balumath area under District Latehar to ensure free and fair election, followed by a team of Commando Force on a Tata 407 mini bus. When the jeep of the patrolling party reached the place of occurrence at around 2 p.m. at a distance of 2 Km. from village Hisari, it was ambushed by the extremist party. The jeep which was leading the patrolling party, was blown up by the land mine explosion and then the extremists started firing on the police party. Commando Force which was following the jeep, returned the fire which continued for 1½ hour and then the extremists taking advantage of the dense forest, retreated and melted in the wilderness. Altogether four police personnel died of explosion in the line of their duty and others were injured. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of Constable Sidheshwar Mahatha, Balumath P.S. Case No. 25/96 was registered against 100–150 unknown extremist under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 324, 325 and 333 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance and commitment, sole appellant was put on trial and convicted for the offences as stated above. 5. The factum of incidence in which four police personnel died in land mine explosion, has not been assailed during the course of argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 6. Challenge to the judgment of conviction is mainly on the point of identification of this appellant being involved in the encounter which followed the land mine explosion. It is argued by the learned counsel that none of the extremists was apprehended on spot and therefore, claim of identification of the appellant during course of encounter from a distance, is doubtful. Challenge to the judgment of conviction is mainly on the point of identification of this appellant being involved in the encounter which followed the land mine explosion. It is argued by the learned counsel that none of the extremists was apprehended on spot and therefore, claim of identification of the appellant during course of encounter from a distance, is doubtful. P.W. 6 has stated that the Test Identification Parade was held on 17.10.1996 i.e. after about five months from the date of incidence. In para 20, he has deposed that he identified the appellant for the first time on 23.08.1996 when he arrested the appellant and then subsequently in the dock. He has admitted in para 22 that he had not taken any precaution to cover the face of the appellant while taking him to judicial custody. On this ground, the identification of the appellant to be involved in the incidence is under challenge in appeal. 7. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the incidence took place in broad day light at around 2 p.m. and after the land mine explosion, the extremist party engaged the police force in encounter for about 1½ hours, therefore, there was sufficient opportunity for the police force to identify the appellant in the said ambush. 8. Informant (P.W. 4) has narrated the incidence which took place on 7th May, 1996. This witness was on the Commander Jeep on election duty which was followed by a bus with commando force. While the vehicle was passing through Hisri forest, a land mine was detonated, as a result, the jeep was blown-up. Extremists thinking that all the members of the patrolling party had died, moved forward towards the blown-up jeep to loot the arms of the police party. Commando Force in the bus following the Jeep, opened fire against the extremist party which continued for 1½ hour. This witness was also injured in the incidence. He has deposed in para (4) that he was summoned for TIP which took place in Latehar Jail, where he identified the appellant. For the first time, he had gone for TIP on 10th October, 1996, as the Magistrate was not present on that day, the TIP could not be conducted and subsequently, it was held on 17.10.1996. He has deposed in para (4) that he was summoned for TIP which took place in Latehar Jail, where he identified the appellant. For the first time, he had gone for TIP on 10th October, 1996, as the Magistrate was not present on that day, the TIP could not be conducted and subsequently, it was held on 17.10.1996. In para 17, he has deposed that about 8 – 10 persons were standing in line bearing different dresses. Defence has failed to elicit any contradiction in his account. P.W. 8 was also a part of the patrolling party and was on the Commander Jeep which hit the land mine. He has corroborated the testimony of informant regarding the incidence and identified the appellant in dock. He has also contended that the accused persons had been identified by him in Test Identification Parade. 9. It appears that the TIP chart has not been adduced into evidence and therefore, identification of the appellant rests on Court identification. 10. The matter for consideration is whether identification of the appellant in the Court can be disbelieved only for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the TIP chart. 11. Identification tests do not constitute substantive piece of evidence. They are primarily an assurance to the investigating agency that their investigation is progressing in the right line. The identification can only be used as corroborative evidence. Test Identification is not a substantive piece of evidence therefore, it cannot be a sole ground to cast away a duly proved prosecution case. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. In Amerika Rai & Others Versus State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1043 which involved a murder case, where a member of the Jharkhand Assembly was shot dead while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, it was held that failure to hold a Test Identification Parade, does not have the effect of weakening the evidence of identification in Court. What should be the weight attached to such an identification, will depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the Investigating Agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a Test Identification Parade. What should be the weight attached to such an identification, will depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the Investigating Agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a Test Identification Parade. Failure to hold Test Identification Parade, could not make the evidence of identification inadmissible in Court [see Malkhansingh & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 2669 ]. 12. In the present case, as discussed above, the appellant was identified in Court by none other than the police personnel who were travelling in the patrolling jeep which was blown up in the land mine explosion. Both the witnesses have identified the appellant during trial. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt the identification and the testimony of these two witnesses. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence, which is accordingly, affirmed. Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Bail of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks of the order. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.