M. A. A. KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 374, Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-3-1998 whereby the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Distt. Alwar) held the appellant Sugreev Singh guilty of the offence under Section 395, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in case of default of making payment of fine further undergo S. I. for six months.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that during the intervening night of 18-19 February, 1996 PW/1 Smt. Vimla Devi, her husband PW /2 Pooran Mal and other members of their family were sleeping in their residential house situated at Khedli District Alwar. It is alleged that the present appellant alongwith four others jumped into the said house and whereas four of the miscreants entered into a room wherein the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were sleeping, one of them remained standing in the Chauk of the house. The miscreants started looting the property of the prosecution witnesses after putting them in fear of incident death or causing grievous hurt to them. In the process of looting they are stated to have caused some injuries to the prosecution witnesses. After having looted the prosecution witnesses of their valuable ornaments, jewellery etc. the miscreants escaped. The report of the incident was lodged by PW /2 Pooran Mal at 2. 00 a. m. in the same night with Police Station Khedli whereat Crime No. 37/96 under Sections 395/397 was registered.

( 3 ) IN the course of investigation the present appellant, besides three others, was arrested. He was put before a Test Identification Parade where he is stated to have been identified by two star witnesses PW /1 Smt. Vimla and PW /2 Pooran Mal. It is further alleged that on an information given by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a pair of PAIJEB was recovered from his possession and the same was got identified by the witnesses as stolen property of the case. After trying the present appellant for the offence under Section 395 IPC, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the evidence brought by the prosecution on the records of the case did not prove the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the testimony of PW /1 Smt. Vimla and PW /2 Pooran Mal has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court inasmuch as that the learned trial Judge did not take into account the fact that the appellant used to work at liquor shop which was in front of the house of PW /2 Pooran Mal at Khedli and both the witnesses knew him from before. It was also pointed out that the learned trial Judge itself disbelieved the evidence relating to the recovery of the stolen property at the instance of the present appellant and, therefore, the only evidence which allegedly incriminated the present appellant was that of Identification Parade of his person. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the testimony of PW/1 Smt. Vimla and PW/2 Shri Pooran Mal did not inspire confidence. It was pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 23-7-1996 from his village in the District of Agra (U. P) vide Ex. P14 and thereafter got identified by the witnesses at the police station and thereafter he was sent to Jail on 24-4-1996. It was submitted that the evidence of identification of the person of the appellant was highly doubtful and, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted in the present case.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned P. P. urged that Smt. Vimla being a house lady is not expected to know the persons working at the liquor shop, therefore, her testimony can not be discarded. It was further submitted that alongwith the evidence relating to the recovery of the stolen property from the possession of or at the instance of the present appellant was not believed by t