R. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE aforesaid seven appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore convicting the appellant Ramakanta Das (Jail Criminal Appeal No. 83/91), appellant Babaji Behera (Jail Criminal Appeal No. 92191), appellant Bauli alias Upendra Mahalik (Criminal Appeal No. 52/91), appellant Janardan alias Danardan Samal (Criminal Appeal No. 73/91) and appellant Dibakar Manalik (Criminal Appeal No. 90/91) under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I. P. C.) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and further convicting appellant Srikant Mahalik (Criminal Appeal No. 58/91) and appellant Puma Chandra Rana (Criminal Appeal No. 70/91 under Section 411 of I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 19/2oth June, 1987, dacoity was committed in the house of P. W. 1 at village Bhandeswar. It is the allegation of the prosecution that when P. W. 1 and his family members were sleeping in their house, the culprits entered into the house of P. W. 1 being armed with lathis, revolvers and different deadly weapons and after assaulting P. W. 1 looted the properties like cash, ornaments, both gold and silver, sarees etc. F. I. R. was lodged by P. W. 1 in the early hours of 20. 6. 1987.

( 3 ) THE plea of the appellants was complete denial.

( 4 ) THE conviction of the appellants rested on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 (who were the inmates of the house) and P. W. 7, a post occurrence witness who had seen all the appellants except appellant Srikanta Mahalik and Puma Chandra Rana coming out from the house of P. W. 1.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that no importance should be attached to the identification by the witnesses in the test identification parade in view of the fact that the culprits were identified by the Investigating Officer before the test identification parade was made. In support of this submission, the counsel relied on the evidence of P. W. 7. P. W. 7 in his cross-examination stated that after three to four days of the occurrence, he could know from the Officer-in-charge of the police station that some culprits had been caught. At that time they were inside the thana hazat and the Officer-in-charge of the police station identified the appellants to be the culprits. In view of such evidence of P. W. 7, his identification made in the test identification parade has lost all value. It is true that identification in the test identification parade is not substantive evidence. What is material is whether the identification of the concerned appellants in the court made by P. W. 7 can be accepted without any corroboration. P. W. 7 was examined in court after three years of the occurrence. There is nothing in his evidence that he had noticed any special features of any of the concerned appellants which enabled him to remember them so accurately. The said witness does not inspire any confidence and as such, his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution. The criticize made against P. W. 7 is however not available in respect of P. Ws. 1 to 3 whose evidence would be shortly discussed.

( 6 ) APPELLANT Bauli alias Upendra Mahalik was arrested on 23. 6. 1987 whereas appellants Ramakanta Das, Babaji Behera, Janardan alias Danardan Samal and Dibaka Mahalik were arrested on 28. 6. 1987 as stated by the Investigating Officer P. W. 22. Appellant Sauli alias Upendra Mahalik was put to test identification parade on 27. 6. 1987 whereas the aforesaid four appellants were put to test identification parade on 3. 7. 1987. It is clear that all of them were put to test identification parade three to four days after their arrest in which the inmates of the house P. Ws. 1 to 3 identified them to be some of the culprits who have participated in the commission of dacoity