Therefore, it is clear that it is a rule of prudence that when test identification parade is not conducted, the conviction cannot be solely based on the identification of the accused in Court. But, in this case, the corroboratory evidence i.e., Exs.P4 and P5, namely the admissible portion of the confession statements of A3 and A4, is leading to recovery; as far as the A3 is concerned, a recovery of Rs.10,000/- from himself; another sum of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.5, Pandurangan, to whom he has given Rs.5,000/-; Similarly, the sum of Rs.10,000/- was also recovered from A4; another sum of Rs.5,000/-, which he had given to one Chinnappa is recovered. Therefore, the recoveries made clinchingly prove the involvement of A3 and A4 and therefore, the probative value of the identification of the accused by P.W.1 before the Court can be taken into account along with the other evidence on record to convict the accused and therefore, I reject the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the findings of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court are perverse for want of test identification parade. I therefore, see no merits in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and I confirm the conviction of the petitioners for the offense punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code.
