(1.) GOPAL Prasad, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the State.
(2.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the appellant is resident of a neighbouring village and use to pass through the house of the informant for going to bazaar and, has, further, asserted that he purchased the land in the village and do the agriculture, hence, the identification in the Test Identification Parade and in Court not reliable and subject to inspire consequence. It has, further, been contended that some of the witnesses stated that the face of the dacoits were covered, hence, identification of the appellant is doubtful and, further defence has been adduced evidence to prove and even file certificate of the Mukhiya and receipt regarding the purchase of silver ring and even sale deed about the purchase of land.