( 1 ) THE revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code ( the IPC for brevity) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and further sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 50/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by the learned principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, by his Judgment dated 5. 8. 1997 passed in s. C. No. 57 of 1997. On appeal, the learned ii Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1997 confirmed the said conviction and sentence by his judgment dated 16. 05. 2000.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is A. 3 in the case. He along with A. 1 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. The gravamen of the charge against him was that he, A. 1, along with four others on the intervening night of 07/08. 12. 1993 at Ganturpally village committed dacoity in the house of Kancherlakunta Peddi reddy and decamped with valuables and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.

( 3 ) IN order to prove the said charge, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and got Exs. P. 1 to P. 10 and M. Os. 1 to 9 marked. None was examined on the side of the accused and no documents were got marked.

( 4 ) THE plea of the revision petitioner was one of total denial. Of the 14 witnesses, p. Ws. 1 to 7 are the persons from whom the properties were robbed. P. W. 8 is the mediator for observation of scene of offence. P. W. 9 is the mediator for the recoveries. P. W. 10 is another mediator for the recoveries but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. P. W. 11 is another mediator for the recovery of the valuables from A. 1 in the Police Station. PW12 is the person with whom some of the items are said to have been pledged by the accused. P. W. 13 is the Munsif Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer.

( 5 ) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court was of the view that the seizure of material objects-M. Os. l to 9 specifically attributed to A. 1 and A. 3 was not clearly established by the prosecution. However, placing reliance upon the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was of the view that since those witnesses could identify the revision petitioner and a. 1 during the test identification parade as well as during their evidence in the Court on oath, their presence at the time of the offence was proved and with that view, he convicted the revision petitioner and another. As aforesaid, the appellate Court confirmed the same.

( 6 ) IT is obvious, therefore, that only on the basis of the identification of the revision petitioner by the witnesses, he was found guilty by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner seeks to assail the said finding on the premise that inasmuch as the identification parade was conducted 8 months after the offence and as the witnesses failed to give their descriptive particulars in their previous statements, their identification of the revision petitioner in test identification parade as well as in the Court looses every efficacy and, therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner is bad.

( 7 ) THE only point that arises for my determination in this revision case is whether the identification of the revision petitioner by the witnesses-P. Ws. l, 4, and 5 can safely be believed or not.

( 8 ) AS can be seen from the evidence of P. W. 1, the offence took place at about 10. 30 p. m. , and at that time along with him, his wife-P. W. 2 and his niece-P. W. 3 were present. His evidence further shows that about six culprits armed with axes and sticks came to their house, forcibly entered into the house and threatened to stab and kill and robbed them of the gold jewellery. It further shows that the culprits beat him on his right shoulder, on his stomach, on his back and on his l