H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Varanasi who upheld on appeal the applicant's conviction and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 379, IPC as recorded by a Magistrate First Class on 23rd of July 1969.
(2.) THE prosecution story maybe stated briefly. Dr. Rishi Ram Sharma is a resident of district Karnal in the State of Punjab. He is an eye specialist and holds his camps at different places for catering medical needs of persons suffering from eye trouble. In the winter of 1961 -62 he held his camp in a village in the district of Arrah in the State of Bihar. Arrah being contiguous to the district of Varanasi, after close of the camp he came to Varanasi On 2.3.1963 Dr. Sharma accompanied with his wife Smt. Ram Singari, his compounder Kashi Nath and his servant Rajpal went for a bath in the Ganges. The party first went to Lalita Ghat, but as it was dirty, the applicant who met them there asked them to proceed ahead to Mirghat where surroundings were cleaner. Accordingly Dr. Sharma and his party accompanied by the applicant came to Mirghat. There Dr. Sharma took out his Jersey which contained currency notes of Rs. 1400/, a wrist watch, a fountain pen a cigarette lighter, a thermometer and some papers and handed it over to Kashi Nath. He took his bath' awl while he was changing his dhoti, he saw the applicant suddenly snatching away jersey from the hands of Kashi Nath and running away. He was chased by Dr. Rishi Ram Sharma and the other witnesses, but he entered the house of Nand Lal who bolted the door from inside. Nand Lal, when questioned, informed the chasers that none had come to his house. Dr. Sharma then returned back to Mirghat and these lie was informed by the people that the person who had run away with his jersey was Ramnath applicant Dr. Sharma wrote out a report and lodged the same at the police station Dasasewamedh at 12.45 P.M. on the basis of. which a case was registered and investigation followed. 3. The applicant was arrested on the same day at 1.30 P.M. and on a search of his house currency notes worth Rs. 316/ - were recovered from a locked box out of which one of the note of Rs. 10/ bore a stamp 'CLT'. He was thereafter sent up for trial under Section 379 IPC. At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He admitted the recovery of the currency notes but asserted that they belonged to him and that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. 4. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of Dr. Sharma, his compounder Kashi Nath and three persons who were present at the time of occurrence on the Mirghat, namely, Jai Hind, Kera Lal and Baiju. Kera and Baiju did not support the prosecution case and were therefore, declared hostile. Dr. Sharma, his compounder Kashi Nath and Jai Hind furnished eye witness account of the occurrence and described in detail how the applicant had snatched away the jersey from the hands of Kashi Nath and that he had run away and even after chaste, could not be captured. Relying on the testimony furnished by these witnesses, the Magistrate recorded a conviction of the applicant and the learned Sessions Judge on appeal concurred with his finding. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that as the applicant was not known to Dr. sharma and his compounder Kashi Nath and as he was not put up for identification by those witnesses at a test parade, theirs testimony should not have been relied upon by the courts below for convicting the applicant. I do not find any substance in this argument. 6. The performance of a witness at a test identification as recorded in the identification memo can be used only for corroborating his testimony in court which alone is substantive evidence in the case. If the evidence furnished in court by witness is of a character on which implicit reliance can be placed; the absence of corroborative evidence in the shape of identification memo is wholly immaterial. The incident had taken place in day light and Dr. Sharma and his compounder must have seen and s identified the man who had snatched away the jersey. If the applicant was not that person, there is no reason why Dr. Sharma and his compounder would have stated before the court that he was the man who had snatched away the jersey. These witnesses belong to Punjab and had come to the bank of Ganges for taking a dip in its holy water. It is difficult to believe that while on such a religious errand they would have falsely implicated a person on a charge of theft with whom they had no animosity of any kind. It is true that it was on the information furnished by others regarding the applicant that Dr. Sharma had mentioned the name of the applicant in his first information report. But when the applicant was brought before him in court, if he would not have been the person responsible for snatching away the jersey. Dr. Sharma and his compounder would have certainly stated that he was not the man who had committed the crime. I have therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the findings recorded by the courts below that on the testimony furnished by Dr. Sharma and his compounder Kashi Nath alone, an offence under Section 379, IPC has been brought home to the applicant. 7. This revision has no force and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He must surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.;