The main legal point established in the judgment is the scrutiny of evidence of identification by the witnesses and the impact of non-examination of the Investigating Officer on the prosecution's case.

1. Appellant, Sheo Ratan Paswan has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and sentence to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as fined rupees twenty thousand and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for two years, additionally by the Additional Sessions Judge, IXth, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 217/2014 vide judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2015 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2015.

2. On 22.06.1988 at about 05:30 AM Mauzi Sao (not examined) gave his fardbeyan to the effect that while he along with his family member were sleeping over roof in the preceding night, they awoke on an alarm of female members of his family dacoit-dacoit whereupon they have seen presence of 5-6 dacoits in the courtyard. 3-4 dacoits were outside courtyard from roof of the house. He also began to raise alarm dacoit-dacoit as well as began to pelt brick particles from the roof of the house whereupon dacoits hurled bomb which caused explosion. During midst thereof, police arrived even then, the dacoits continued with hurling of bombs. In order to protect themselves, police party fired as a result of which, dacoits began to flee who were chased but, after crossing railway line they managed to succeed taking the benefit of darkness. Police party gone in search to apprehend the dacoits but could not succeed. His family members have seen the dacoits in the electric light whom they identified. Then had disclosed the physical feature of the dacoits. It has further been disclosed that the dacoits could not be able to take away their belongings rather one bag belonging to the dacoits left away which was produced before the police official during course of fardbeyan. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 65/1988 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet, facilitating the trial which concluded in a manner, subject matter of instant appeal.

3. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of innocence as well as false implication at the instance of the police. To substantiate the same also examined one DW as well as had also exhibited the jail register.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether six PWs who are PW.1-Suresh Prasad, PW.2- Surendra Prasad, PW.3-Basanti Devi, PW.4-Parwati Devi, PW.5- Janki Mahto and PW.6-Chunni Singh. Side by side also exhibited Ext.1-Signature of father of informant over fardbeyan, Ext.2- Signature of Janki Mahto over seizure list, Ext.3-Formal FIR, Ext.4-Fardbeyan, Ext.5-Production cum Seizure List, Ext.5/ASeizure List relating to seized articles, Ext.6-TIP of accused, Ext.6/A-TIP of seized articles. As stated above, defence had also examined DW.1-Narendra Kumar Verma had exhibited Ext.A-Jail Admission Register dated 25.07.1988.

5. Manifold points have been raised during course of argument at the end of learned counsel for the appellant in order to challenge the veracity of the finding recorded by the learned lower court. The first and foremost happens to be that appellant was not at all put on TI Parade as, the day on which TI Parade was conducted, appellant was enjoying privilege of bail. Neither was noticed by the court nor by the Investigating Officer to participate in the TI Parade and that being so, there was no occasion for the appellant to participate during T.I. Parade. In pursuance thereof, the identification of appellant in court for the first time after long delay of years together neither is legally recognizable nor could be relied upon, as such long duration was sufficient to undo the event as might have fainted with memory of the witnesses. It has also been submitted that from the fardbeyan itself it is apparent that there happens to be no presence of PW.1 as well as PW.2 who happen to be sons of informant and as they are the persons who claimed identification of the appellant therefore, same appears to be unreli