appellate Court and considering the evidence on record, his objection was negatived. As rightly observed by the appellate Court, simply because, there was no test identification parade and the accused was identified for the first time in the Court, the same cannot be discarded, unless there is some glaring motive for the witness to implicate or speak any falsehood against the accused. Admittedly, A1 is unknown person to P.W.1 and there is no reason for P.W.1 to speak anything against this revision petitioner. Further, part of stolen property was recovered from the possession of revision petitioner. It is contended that since no denomination is mentioned in the complaint, the money recovered from the revision petitioner cannot be connected to P.W.1. Here, as seen from the material, revision petitioner has not claimed this money as that of him. When P.W.1 deposed that M.O.1 is the bag belonging to him, that aspect was not touched in the cross-examination. There is no material to show that P.W.1 wrongly claimed M.O.1. Both the trial Court and appellate Court have discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and they rightly appreciated their evidence. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the material witnesses on any of the aspects supporting the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to
