Full Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The appellants in these two appeals have been convicted under Section 395. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years.
2. The occurrence took place on 25.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M. in the house of P.W. 2, the informant. It is alleged that several unknown culprits entered inside the house forcibly and removed many valuable ornaments.
3. The two appellants along with one Rama Sahu faced trial, whereas three others culprits though apprehended escaped from the jail and have not been tried as yet. The other accused Rama Sahu has been acquitted by the trial Court since he could not be identified by the witnesses. The order of conviction is based on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Their evidence relating to culpability of the two appellants is corroborated by the report of the Test Identification Parade wherein the witnesses had also identified the present appellants.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that though the appellant Sikandar Mulla and appellant Sk. Jamir were arrested on 12.1.1991 and 25.1.1991 respectively, T.I. Parade was held on 6.3.1991 after long delay and there was every possibility of the two appellants having been shown to the identifying witnesses. It is, of course, true that the Test Identification Parade was held after some amount of delay, but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the identifying parade had not been conducted properly. There is no material on record to indicate that, in fact, the accused persons had been shown to the witnesses prior to the holding of the identification parade. The evidence of the Magistrate who held the T.I. Parade discloses that proper precautions had been taken and the present two appellants had been properly identified by the two identifying witnesses. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2 and that of P.W. 3 (wife of P.W.2) discloses that their evidence is trustworthy and there is nothing to discard their sworn testimony in Court which has received corroboration from the previous identification in the T.I. Parade. In such view of the matter, I do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the trial Court. The order of conviction and sentence is accordingly sustained.
5. It appears that both the appellants were taken into custody in the month of January, 1991. By now six years must have elapsed. It is presumed that they must have been released in the meantime. However, if they are still continuing in custody in connection with this case, they may be released forthwith.