Sharma, J.—This is an appeal by the accused Aziz Khan, Kasim, Jittu Singh, Banney Singh. Sanwata and Prahlad who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu under sec. 395, I. P.O. and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment each. 2. The prosecution case is that on the 2nd of September, 1955 a dacoity took place at the houses of Chiranjilal, Banwarilal, and Prahlad Rai Mahajans of village Bhawatri under the police station Surajgarh in the district of Jhunjhunu, and that the six appellants along with Richpal Singh were the dacoits. It is alleged that all these seven persons came on three camels to the village Bhawatri in the afternoon of the 2nd September, 1955. Aziz Khan was in a Khaki dress and a hat and was armed with a gun, Jittu Singh and Prahlad had kirchas (swords) and Banney Singh and Sanwata also had a gun each. The remaining two persons, namely, Richpal Singh and Kasim had a lathi each. At the house of Chiranjilal Mahajan on the date of occurrence four carpenters were working, namely, Mahadeo, Bajranga, Nathu and Chandgi. All the above named seven persons entered the house of Chiranjilal, which is also shared by his brother Banwarilal, on camels. Prahlad and Jittu Singh after getting down from the camels came near Chiranjilal and began to beat him and demanded the key of his safe. The carpenters were also given some beating and were driven out of the house. Chiranjilal refused to give the key of the safe on which Sanwata, Kasim and Richpal Singh broke open the locks of rooms, boxes and almirahs and took out a lot of property by way of clothes, ornaments and cash. When Jittu Singh, Kasim and Richpal Singh were busy in looting the property from inside the house, Aziz Khan armed with gun took his stand on the roof of the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal. Banney Singh stood outside the gate of the house armed with his gun. The dacoits first looted the property of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal and then went to the house of Prahladrai along with Chiranjilal. The dacoits broke open the locks of the rooms, almirahs and boxes inside Prahladrais house and looted property by way of ornaments, clothes and cash. Banney Singh stood outside the gate of the house armed with his gun. The dacoits first looted the property of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal and then went to the house of Prahladrai along with Chiranjilal. The dacoits broke open the locks of the rooms, almirahs and boxes inside Prahladrais house and looted property by way of ornaments, clothes and cash. The entire looted property from the two houses was filled up in bags which were loaded not only on three camels which the dacoits had brought with themselves but also on two other camels one belonging to Chiranjilal and the other to Banwarilal. Clothes, ornaments, cash and other looted property along with the two camels one of Banwarilal and the other of Chiranjilal with their saddles and other equipments were taken away thereafter by the dacoits. 3. After the dacoits had left the place, one Nathu is said to have come to the house of Chiranjilal and while Nathu was there one Saitan Singh Jamadar also arrived on the scene, Chiranjilal gave account of the dacoity to Saitan Singh who made a report at the police station, Surajgarh. This report is Ex. P. 1 and was recorded at police station, Surajgarh at about 10-30 p. m. on 2nd September, 1955. In this report it was stated that seven dacoits had come on three camels to village Bhawatri and had committed dacoity at the house of Prahladrai and Banwarilal. 4. On receipt of the above report, Sri Ganesh Singh the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Surajgarh started for the spot and sent a telegraphic information to the Superintendent of Police concerned He examined the site of occurrence and then left for the arrest of the dacoits. When he was on the spot, a pair of shoes said to have been left by the dacoits was seized by him as per recovery memo Ex. P. 3. It is said that at certain distance from the house of the victims of the dacoity, the foot prints of camels were found but then they became untraceable. On the information sent by Sri Ganesh Singh, the Superintendent of Police concerned Sri N. C. Dutt also reached the spot. P. 3. It is said that at certain distance from the house of the victims of the dacoity, the foot prints of camels were found but then they became untraceable. On the information sent by Sri Ganesh Singh, the Superintendent of Police concerned Sri N. C. Dutt also reached the spot. It is said that upto a certain distance the foot prints of several camels were found and thereafter the foot prints became bifurcated and Sri N. G. Dutt therefore divided the police force which he had taken with him into two parties. These two parties searched for the dacoits. On 4th September, 1955 Sri Dutt again reached the village Bhawatri and inspected the site of the dacoity. He found the movable property inside the houses of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal in disorder and took into possession certain utensils which appeared to bear some finger marks. These utensils were seized for the purpose of identification of the finger prints at the Foransic Laboratory, Jaipur where the finger prints were found to be incapable of identification. Certain cartridge cases and a piece of a kirch were also found on the spot and were seized by the police. This piece of kirch is Ex. P. 6 on the record of this case. The victims of the dacoity also handed over the list of the looted properties to the police and they are Exs. P.12 and P. 13. Search for the dacoits and investigation went on and on 19th September, 1955 Sri Dutt received some clue of the dacoity and deputed Sri Kalyan Singh, the then Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Nahar to village Gadwara (Barda) in Mahendergarh district in order to arrest Sanwata and Prahlad and recover whatever property might be suspected to be of the dacoity in question. Another Sub-Inspector Sri Kanwar Singh was sent to village Bund in order to effect the arrest of Banney Singh. Sri Kalyan Singh on reaching village Gadwara effected the arrest of Sanwata and Prahlad and it is said that he recovered certain property from the possession of these two persons on the information supplied to him. Sri Kalyan Singh despatched the wire Ex. P. 93 to Sri Dutt about the arrest of the last named two accused and recovery of property. He also requested for the arrest of Aziz Khan, Kasim, Jittu Singh and Richpal Singh of village Gidaniya. Sri Kalyan Singh despatched the wire Ex. P. 93 to Sri Dutt about the arrest of the last named two accused and recovery of property. He also requested for the arrest of Aziz Khan, Kasim, Jittu Singh and Richpal Singh of village Gidaniya. On this telegram Sri Dutt reached the village Gidani a early in the morning on the 21st September, 1955 along with certain police employees including Sub-Inspector Sri Yogendra Singh of police station, Chirawa. A raid was made at the house of Aziz Khan, Jittu Singh and Richpal Singh and they were put under arrest and the recovery memos in respect of their arrest are Exs. P. 69, 70 and 71 respectively. S. I. Yogendra Singh is said to have recovered certain property from the possession of Aziz Khan, Richpal Singh and Jittu Singh on the information supplied by these accused. Certain arms were also taken into possession from the house of Aziz Khan and it is said that a broken kirch (sword) Ex. P. 3 was also recovered along with certain guns, rifle, other arms and ammunition. It is said that thereafter a camel was taken into possession from the house of Aziz Khan on his information and recovery memo Ex. P. 21 was prepared in respect of it. With respect to other property said to have been recovered from the possession of Aziz Khan recovery memo Ex. P. 27 was prepared. Recovery was then made from the house of Richpal Singh. One camel was recovered and recovery memo Ex. P. 22 was prepared. Thereafter the investigation at Gidaniya was entrusted to Sri Kalyan Singh who had reached thereafter lodging the two arrested accused Sanwata and Prahlad in Chirawa lock-up. It is said that Sri Kalyan Singh interrogated Jittu Singh and on his information certain property was recovered from his house and certain other property was found buried underground behind his house. Recovery memo Ex. P. 23 was prepared in respect of this property. Thereafter Sri Kalyan Singh interrogated Richpal Singh and it is said that he also furnished certain information and on that information substantial property was recovered from his house. Recovery memo Ex. P. 24 was prepared in Respect of this recovery. Sri Kalyan Singh took Jittu Singh and Richpal Singh to police station, Chirawa on 21st September, 1955 and there they were lodged in police lock-up. Recovery memo Ex. P. 24 was prepared in Respect of this recovery. Sri Kalyan Singh took Jittu Singh and Richpal Singh to police station, Chirawa on 21st September, 1955 and there they were lodged in police lock-up. Azizkhan was taken to Chirawa police station by Sri Yogendra Singh and was lodged in the police lock-up there. Sri N. C Dutt after giving instructions to the Sub-Inspector at Gidaniya started in search of Kasim, who was arrested on 23rd September, 1955 and memo Ex. P.66 was prepared in respect thereof. He is also said to have furnished information while under arrest to Sri Kalyan Singh and on that information certain property is said to have been recovered from the house said to be in possession of Kasim. In respect of this recovery memo Ex. P. 25 is said to have been prepared. After the arrest of Azizkhan, Kasim, Richpal Singh, Jittu Singh, Prahlad and Sanwata, they were put up for identification before Shri M. M. Mathur, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khetri on 25th September, 1955. Banney Singh was arrested at Hisar and from there he was brought by Sri Bachan Singh P.W. 28 to Chirawa jail. Two camels were recovered, one of them from the possession of Man Singh P. W. 18 of village Kharak, Sagroor District. Recovery memos Exs. P. 14 and 15 respectively were prepared in respect of its seizure and that of its saddle and other equipments. Another camel was reco\ered from the possession of Ramswaroop P. W. 55 and recovery memo Ex. P. 31 was prepared in respect thereof. Banney Singh and two camel, which were recovered were brought to Chirawa. The two camels were those camels which were said to have been looted by the dacoits at the dacoity in question along with their saddles and other equipments. Banney Singh was put up for identification at the identification parade on 8th November, 1955, before Sri Ganpatram Magistrate P. W. 44. It is said that clothes and ornaments were also recovered from the possession of Banney Singh. During the investigation Chiranjilal was also medically examined as certain injuries were found on his person. 5. Banney Singh was put up for identification at the identification parade on 8th November, 1955, before Sri Ganpatram Magistrate P. W. 44. It is said that clothes and ornaments were also recovered from the possession of Banney Singh. During the investigation Chiranjilal was also medically examined as certain injuries were found on his person. 5. After investigation, all the seven accused were challaned in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Chirawa, u/s 395/397 I.P.C. and along with them three other accused, namely, Nauranga, Musatak and Nanu Singh from whom some of the looted property is said to have been recovered were challaned u/s 412 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate committed all the 10 accused to take their trial in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Nauranga, Musatak and Nanu Singh were to take their trial u/s 112 1. P. C. and the other accused u/s 395/397 I.P.C. 6. As many as 61 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and quite a large number of articles and documents were exhibited. Out of the two camels said to have been recovered from the possession of Man Singh and Ramswaroop one had died before the trial and its skin was produced before the court. Identification proceedings with respect to the camels, arms and the other property seized had also taken place during the investigation. Magistrates before whom various properties were identified were examined as prosecution witnesses. 7. All the accused denied the charge. Azizkhan admitted the recovery of the arms from his place excepting the sword (kirch Ex. P. 3). All the accused denied the recovery of other property. Banney Singh denied that he had anything to do with the camels seized by the police from the possession of Man Singh and Ramswaroop. Prahlad and Sanwata said that they bore enmity with Sri Kalyan Singh Sub-Inspector as they had made a complaint against him of bribery in a case u/s 366 started against them and it is on account of that enmity that they had been falsely implicated. 8. The accused examined 17 witnesses in their defence. When 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined before the learned Sessions Judge Richpal Singh accused expressed his desire to become an approver and permission was given to him for the same. 9. The learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied that any offence was made out against Nauranga, Musatak and Nanu Singh and consequently acquitted them. When 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined before the learned Sessions Judge Richpal Singh accused expressed his desire to become an approver and permission was given to him for the same. 9. The learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied that any offence was made out against Nauranga, Musatak and Nanu Singh and consequently acquitted them. He also found that the property recovered from the possession of Banney Singh was not proved to be stolen property without reasonable doubt. He, however, held Azizkhan, Kasim, Jittu Singh, Sanwata and Prahlad guilty of an offence u/s 395 I.P.C. on the basis of the evidence of identifying witnesses, recovery of the looted property and the statement of Richpal Singh approver. 10. As regards Banney Singh he did not find that the property recovered from his possession was stolen property. He, however, convicted him u/s 395 I.P.C. on the basis of the evidence of identity and the recovery of two camels, one from the possession of Man Singh and the other from Ramswaroop, and the evidence of the approver. All these accused have been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment each. Richpal Singh, who had turned approver, was set at liberty. This judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is dated 30th November, 1956 and the six appellants Azizkhan, Kasim, Jittu Singh, Banney Singh, Sanwata and Prahlad have come in appeal against their conviction and sentence. I 11. I have heard Sri Nooruddin Ahmad of Delhi and Sri J.K. Mathur on behalf of the appellants and Sri B. C. Chatterjee on behalf of the State. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of approver Richpal Singh in this case was altogether worthless. Ordinarily an approver is not a reliable witness and his evidence cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. In the present case the evidence of the approver should not be taken into account because he turned an approver at a very late stage when all the prosecution witnesses had been examined in the committing court and even in the sessions court 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined in his presence. In the present case the evidence of the approver should not be taken into account because he turned an approver at a very late stage when all the prosecution witnesses had been examined in the committing court and even in the sessions court 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined in his presence. The entire prosecution story had therefore come out in his presence from the prosecution witnesses, and in order to purchase his liberty, he considered it expedient on a promise of pardon to narrate the story which had been related by the prosecution witnesses. As regards the evidence of identification it was argued that is was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to be able to identify the accused at the time of the dacoity and the identification which was made was simply a made up one because according to the evidence of the approver Richpal Singh and Thanaram P. W. 27. all the arrested persons were kept without parda and they were taken out of jail uncovered for easing purposes. There was therefore sufficient opportunity for the prosecution witnesses to have a look at them. As regards the recovery of the property, it was argued that it was not proved that Benney Singh had sold the two camels to Man Singh and Ram Swaroop, and that the other property, which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the other accused, was not in fact recovered from their possession and bogus recovery memos were prepared showing that the same was recovered from the possession of the accused. It was argued that it was not proved that the broken sword Ex. P. 3 was recovered from the house of Azizkhan. It was argued that it is very extraordinary that in this case all the accused could have furnished information on the mere asking of Sri Yogendra Singh and Sri Kalyan Singh Sub-Inspector and it has been stressed with great vehemence that this matter of the furnishing of information by the accused is an entirely made up one. It was contended that the property which was recovered from the possession of Banney Singh, was not held to be the looted property, on the very evidence on which the property recovered from the possession of the other accused has been held to be looted property. It was contended that the property which was recovered from the possession of Banney Singh, was not held to be the looted property, on the very evidence on which the property recovered from the possession of the other accused has been held to be looted property. It was argued that again$t Sanwata and Prahlad, Kalyan Singh S. I. had enmity and, therefore, they were falsely involved. As regards Azizkhan and others, it has been argued that they were implicated on account of the enmity of the villagers. Learned counsel argued that poster Ex. P. 98, which has been placed on the record, shows that in the first instance certain villagers of village Bhawatri were suspected, who where subsequently let off. It was argued that if the accused in the present case had committed dacoity, there was no reason for Chiranjilal and others to suspect the villagers. 12. In the end it was argued that the sentence in any case is severe because no serious injury was caused to any of the persons whose houses are grid to have been looted. 13. On behalf of the State it was argued by Sri Chatterjee that there was no room to doubt that the dacoity had taken place at the houses of Banwarilal, Chiranjilal and Prahlad Rai on the date in question. The evidence for the prosecution fully establishes the guilt against each of the six accused without reasonable doubt. It was argued that there is a lot of documentary and oral evidence on the record to show that all the accused were kept Baparda from the date of their arrest to the date of their identification before Sri M.M. Mathur and Sri Ganpatram Magistrates and the witnesses who have identified the various accused and were in a position to clearly recognise them at the time of the dacoity. It was argued that no objection was taken by any of the accused except Kasim at the time of the identification parade that they had been shown to the identifying witnesses before their identification and even Kasim only alleged that he had been shown only to Dan Singh. It was argued that identification proceedings were quite proper and the identification by the various witnesses was quite genuine. It was argued that there is no doubt that Barisal Singh and Thanaram P. Ws. It was argued that identification proceedings were quite proper and the identification by the various witnesses was quite genuine. It was argued that there is no doubt that Barisal Singh and Thanaram P. Ws. 16 and 27 respectively had deposed before the court that no recovery took place in their presence tram the house of Azizkhan and Kasim, but this statement they have made simply because they were won over by the accused, who were their co-villagers, and they had therefore to be declared hostile by the prosecution. It was argued that so far as Sanwata and Prahlad are concerned, the two attesting witnesses Ramswaroop and Shiboo P. Ws. 33 and 39 respectively had supported the police officers who deposed that recovery had taken taken place from the houses of these two accused. So far as Azizkhan and Kasim are concerned, the two attesting witnesses Barisal Singh and Thanaram P. Ws. 16 and 27 respectively did not support the police officers in the matter of the recovery of clothes, ornaments and cash, but supported them in the matter of recovery of the sword Ex. P. 3 from the house of Azizkhan, which is one part of the Kirch of which the other part is Ex. P. 6 recovered from the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal during investigation. As regards Jittu Singh, it was argued that Barisal Singh and Thanaram had supported the prosecution in respect of the recovery made from his house. It was argued that it was fully proved that the camels recovered from the possession of Man Singh and Ramswaroop had been sold to them by Banney Singh soon after the dacoity in question. 14. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. So far as the factum of the dacoity is concerned, there is not the least doubt about it. Learned counsel for the appellants himself did not seriously challenge that a dacoity took place at the houses of Bhanwarilal, Chiranjilal and Prahaladrai on the date in question, and a lot of property was looted from their houses. Sri Hardayal Master P. W. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants himself did not seriously challenge that a dacoity took place at the houses of Bhanwarilal, Chiranjilal and Prahaladrai on the date in question, and a lot of property was looted from their houses. Sri Hardayal Master P. W. 3. who is teacher in a school adjacent to the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal, deposed that on the date of occurrence between 4 and 5 p. m., he was standing at the gate of the school when from north side seven persons came on three camels armed with two swords, three guns and two lathis. These persons were not known to the witness from before. They got down from the camels near the school and went towards the house of Banwarilal Mahajan. One of these persons took his stand near the gate of the said house of Banwarilal and remaining six entered that house on three camels. When these persons reached inside the house, the carpenters Mahadeo, Chandgiram, Bajranglal and Nathu as well as Chiranjilal raised an alarm and all the four carpenters came out. One of the dacoits was putting on Khaki dress and a hat over his head and one of them took his stand on the roof of the house of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal. The witness himself saw after the dacoity that the decoits had taken away a number of bigs on five camels out of which three had been brought by them and two belonged to Bhanwarilal and Chiranjilal. Nathu P. W. 4 stated that he was working as carpenter at the house of Banwari Lal and Chiranjilal on the date in question and that at about 5 p. m. when he was working there along with three other carpenters, namely, Chandgiram, Mahadeo and Bajranga, he saw that seven persons came from north side on three camels and entered the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal. Chiranji Lal was also there at that time. These persons were armed with three guns, two swords and two lathis. They were unknown to the witness. Having entered the house, they began to beat Chiranjilal. The witness along with three other carpenters came out of the house. One of these seven persons was putting on Khaki dress and a hat over his bead and had a gun with him. They were unknown to the witness. Having entered the house, they began to beat Chiranjilal. The witness along with three other carpenters came out of the house. One of these seven persons was putting on Khaki dress and a hat over his bead and had a gun with him. Bajranga, who was also a carpenter working inside the house at the time of the occurrence, deposed that seven persons came on three camels armed with guns, swards and lathis. The witness, who was also a carpenter, being terrified got out of the house and remained hidden in the house of a Brahman and came out when the dacoits had gone away. This witness identified the piece of the sword Ex. P. 6 as the one which was found at the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal after the dacoity. Chiranjilal P. W. 12 gave a detailed account of the dacoity. He said that four carpenters Mahadeo, Bajranga, Chandgiram and Nathu were working at his house on the date of occurrence when 7 persons mounted on three camels and armed with three guns, two swords and two lathis came to his house at about 5 p.m. One of them was dressed in Khaki and had a hat on his head and he took his stand on the roof of his house; another who was also armed with a gun, took his stand at the gate of the house and two of them who had swords asked the witness to point out as to where the safe was and when the witness refused to tell them he was given beating by these two persons with sheathed swords. Three of the dacoits broke open the locks of the almirahs, rooms and boxes, and took out a lot of property while the witness was being beaten with the two swords. The witness further stated that the dacoits took away a lot of clothes, ornaments and cash from the house which belonged both to him and his brother Banwarilal. The witness proceeded to say that thereafter the dacoits went into the house of Prahlad Rai which was adjacent to his house and there too they looted a lot of property. The looted property was filled up inside several bags which were loaded not only on the three camels belonging to the dacoits, but also on the two camels belonging to the witness and bis brother Banwarilal. The looted property was filled up inside several bags which were loaded not only on the three camels belonging to the dacoits, but also on the two camels belonging to the witness and bis brother Banwarilal. These two camels along with saddles and other equipments were taken away by the dacoits. Shyam Sunder P. W. 10 who is the son of Banwarilal and the nephew of Chiranjilal, also supported the prosecution case about the dacoity. He was a boy of ten years at the time of the occurrence and the learned Sessions Judge after satisfying himself that he did not understand the significance of oath but realised the value of truth recorded his statement without oath. He too stated that seven dacoits had come on three camels at about 4 p.m. on the date of occurrence and got down from the camels near the school adjacent to the house of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal. One of the dacoits was dressed in khaki and had a hat on his head. He asked the witness whose son he was on which the witness said that he was the son of a poor Mahajan. That dacoit then asked the witness to get away. The witness stated that the said dacoit had a gun in his hand. The witness being terrified came out of the house and ran towards the house of Bhoora Singh Rajput when he saw his uncle Chiranjilal being beaten by the dacoits. He stated that three of the dacoits were armed with guns, two with lathis and two with swords. 15. All these witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no useful purpose to the defence was served by the cross examination. Some property belonging to the looted persons was recovered at certain places in the village after the dacoity. A piece of Kirch Ex. P. 6 was also recovered from the house of Chiranji Lal and Banwarilal during investigation. A report of the occurrence was made soon after the occurrence and it is Ex. P. 1 on the record. It was clearly mentioned in that report that at about 5 p. m. seven persons, some of whom were armed, visited village Bhawatri on the date of occurrence and looted the houses of Prahlad Rai, Chiranjilal and Banwarilal Mahajans and took away a lot of property along with two camels belonging to Banwarilal and Chiranjilal. P. 1 on the record. It was clearly mentioned in that report that at about 5 p. m. seven persons, some of whom were armed, visited village Bhawatri on the date of occurrence and looted the houses of Prahlad Rai, Chiranjilal and Banwarilal Mahajans and took away a lot of property along with two camels belonging to Banwarilal and Chiranjilal. It has also been mentioned therein that injuries were caused to Chiranjilal by the dacoits. It has also been mentioned that at the time of the dacoity four carpenters namely, Mahadeo, Bajranga, Chandgiram and Nathu were working inside the house of Chiranjilal and Banwarilal and were forced to get out of it by the dacoits. The description of the two camels has been given in the report and with respect to the other property, it has been stated that particulars would be given by Chiranjilal who was present inside the house at the time of the dacoity. As regards Prahladrai and Banwarilal, it has been stated that they were not present when the dacoity took place. 16 Chiranjilal was examined by Dr. H. P. Gupta at Chirawa dispensary on 5th September 1955, at about 10 a.m. and eight injuries all by blunt weapon found on his reason. According to the doctor the injuries were about two and a half days old and could be caused by the sheath of the sword whose one of the pieces appeared to be Ex. P. 6. 17. It is clear from all the evidence that the dacoity took place as alleged by the prosecution. As said in the beginning the fact of dacoity was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants in the course of their arguments. The dacoits were more than five in number, and, therefore, whosoever might have been concerned in the crime would be guilty of an offence u/s 395 I.P.C. 18. Now 1 proceed to examine as to whether the appellants or any of them were concerned in the dacoity before dealing with the case of each individual accused, I may say at the out set that I am unable to make any use of the statement of Richpal Singh P. W. 51 approver in this case. An approver is ordinarily an unreliable person and his evidence as a rule of prudence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. An approver is ordinarily an unreliable person and his evidence as a rule of prudence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The reason is that an approver is considered to be a despicable person who first participates in a crime and then betrays his companions. In the present case there are still greater reasons to look upon the evidence of the approver Richpal Singh with very great suspicion. He never came forward with his story till the entire prosecution evidence had been recorded in the court of the Committing Magistrate in his presence and no less than 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined in his presence in the trial court. Thus he had the entire prosecution story unfolded before him by the prosecution witnesses. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer that at that stage this approver realised that discretion was the better part of valour and having heared the entire prosecution story, he thought it expedient to repeat it to save his skin. I attach no value to the evidence of this approver in the circumstances of this case and giving my decision, I will have to look to other evidence. 19. Another arguement of the learned counsel for the appellants may also be dealt with before dealing with the case of each individual accused. This argument is that a poster Ex. P. 98 which has been produced in this case goes to show that at first some of the villagers of Bhawatri were suspected to be among the dacoits and this shows that the victims of the dacoity had no complaint against any outsider at that time. It is true that a printed poster Ex. P. 98 has been produced in this case. It purports to have been issued at the instance of one Suraj Bhan Araya and shows that five persons, namely, Choudhri Kurda Ram, Choudhri Amilal, Surajbhan Araya, Bheruram and Harpoolram were at first arrested in connection with the dacoity at the house of Banwarilal. This poster has, in the first instance, not been proved by any legal evidence. Even if it be taken to be proved, it does not show that no outsiders were concerned in the dacoity in question. No questions were put to Chiranjilal P. W. 12 with respect to this poster. This poster has, in the first instance, not been proved by any legal evidence. Even if it be taken to be proved, it does not show that no outsiders were concerned in the dacoity in question. No questions were put to Chiranjilal P. W. 12 with respect to this poster. However Banwarilal P. W. 43 was confronted with this statement before the police in which he had stated that he had suspicion that the dacoity might have been instigated by Suraj and Kurda presumably the two persons mentioned as Surajbhan Araya and Choudhri Kurdaram in Ex. P. 98, as there was litigation going on between Banwarilal and Chirnjilal on one side and Kurdaram and Surajbhan on another. It may be that it might have been suspected by Banwarilal that these two persons might be at the root of the dacoity. However it is clear from his statement Ex. D. 40 before the police that Bhanwarilal simply said that he had suspicion that the dacoity was commit-ted at the instigation of these persons. It does not say that these two persons or any of the villagers participated in the dacoity and no outsiders participated. The Superintendent of Police Sri N. C. Dutt P. W. 46 and Sri Ganesh Singh P. W. 59, the then S.H.O. Police Station, Surasgarh were not put any question as to why the five persons mentioned in Ex. P. 9b were taken into custody at first. They would have been the best persons to explain why these persons were arrested. The F. I. R. shows that seven dacoits came on camels armed with different weapons. Had the case of the prosecution been that the villagers of Bhawatri or for the matter of that five persons named in Ex. P. 98 were among the dacoits, it would not have been difficult to say in the F. I. R.. that the villagers or these five persons named in Ex. P. 98 had committed dacoity. The villagers and specially those who were not on good terms with Banwarilals family could not have the courage to commit dacoity in broad day light and take looted properly on camels including two camels belonging to Chiranji Lal and Banwarilal them elves. There is no evidence to show that at any time the looted persons gave out that the villagers of Bhawatri and not outsiders were among the dacoits. There is no evidence to show that at any time the looted persons gave out that the villagers of Bhawatri and not outsiders were among the dacoits. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that seven persons some of them armed with weapons entered the village Bhawatri at about 5 p. m. etc. This clearly shows that the maker of the report meant that the dacoits were outsiders, otherwise it would not have been necessary to say that seven persons entered the village of Bhawatri and then committed the dacoity. If the dacoits were villagers according to the complainants, it would have been clearly said that the dacoity was committed by the residents of the village. 20 Now I take up the case of each individual accused, who have come in this appeal. (1) Aziz Khan: The evidence against him is as follows (a) Identification by witnesses at the identification parade and in court; (b) Recovery of property from his house said to have been recovered in pursuance of information supplied by him ; and (c) Recovery of guns, a camel and a broken piece of sword Ex. P. 3 from his house. I deal with this evidence separately. (a) Identification by witnesses at the identification parade and in court— Note—Portions where his lordship has discussed evidence have been omitted and indicated as ... .........There is enough documentary and oral evidence on the record to show that the accused including Azizkhan, who were arrested at Gidaniya as well as at Gadwara had been warned at the time of their arrest that they would be put for identification and should give themselves under cover, and that they were in fact kept under cover. .........The time between the arrest of this accused and that of the identification parade was hardly four cays and I am perfectly satisfied that during this short time, this accused was kept Baparda and no opportunity was afforded to the prosecution witnesses to see him before he was put up for identification at the identification parade Mr. N. C.Dutt, Superintendent of Police, P. W. 46 has also deposed that at the time of his arrest, Azizkhan accused was warned to keep his face covered. N. C.Dutt, Superintendent of Police, P. W. 46 has also deposed that at the time of his arrest, Azizkhan accused was warned to keep his face covered. I do not think that it was either by accident or by manipulation that this accused was identified by Bajranglal P. W. 5, Chiranjilal P. W.12 and Shyamsunder P.W. 10, but that the identification was due to the fact that these witnesses had seen this accused at the time of the dacoity and were therefore able to identify him at the identification parade. 21. It was argued that no particular description of this accused was given to the Magistrate before whom identification parade took place of these witnesses. Of course the only particular, which has been given about the accused, is that they were young and one of them was dressed in khaki and a hat on. It is, however, very difficult for a person who has seen a dacoit during dacoity to give detailed description of his unless he has conspicuous distinguishing marks and only general description is normally possible and this is what has been done by the witnesses. Simply because any particular distinguishing marks were not given, it cannot be said that the identification was not reliable. One may form a general picture of a particular person in his mind and might be able to identify when he is put up before him, but it is very difficult for persons specially villagers and young boys to be able to give a detailed description of the persons whom they have seen for a short time during the commission of a dacoity. That does not however mean that those persons when placed before them cannot be identified by them. The general description is given that all the dacoits were young. It would be found that Aziz Khan was 26 years old, Kasim 27, Banney Singh 23, Sanwata 25 and Prahlad 24. They were therefore all young people at the time the dacoity was committed. Only Jittu Singh has given his age as 39 in his statement u/s 342 which took place about a year after the occurrence. He was therefore about 38 years old when the dacoity took place and therefore his description also as a young man cannot be said to be altogether incorrect. Only Jittu Singh has given his age as 39 in his statement u/s 342 which took place about a year after the occurrence. He was therefore about 38 years old when the dacoity took place and therefore his description also as a young man cannot be said to be altogether incorrect. Aziz Khun was also identified by the above three witnesses at the trial as one of the dacoits. (b) Recovery of Property 22. Besides identification by the witnesses, there is the evidence of recovery of the looted property from the possession of this accused............ Note—Portions where his lordship has discussed evidence have been omitted and indicated as... The police was of course in a very unenviable position in this case. Out of the four attesting witnesses, two of whom they produced, did not support the prosecution and in some respects favoured the defence, they had to produce atleast these two witnesses even though they were hostile. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be taken at its face value and the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in not throwing out the prosecution case in the matter of recovery from Aziz Khans place simply on account of the fact that these two witnesses went against the prosecution even though they had signed the recovery memos. So far as Sheonath is concerned, it is clear that he sided with the defence. 23. Recovery list Ex. P. 26 has been written in the same copying pencil in which Berisal Singh and other witnesses have signed this document. Looking at the document as a whole it cannot be said that signatures must have been obtained first and document written afterwards. This document covers four pages and signature and thumb impressions appear on the 4th page which contains only four or five written lines. The signatures of the attesting witnesses Sonia, Chokharam and Berisal Singh are immediately after the last line and the signatures of Yogendra Singh S. J. who prepared the memo are also almost in the same line with Sonias signatures. The thumb impression of Thanaram is just below Yogendra Singhs signatures and almost opposite the signatures of Berisal Singh. Hundreds of items of property recovered have been recorded in this memo. The thumb impression of Thanaram is just below Yogendra Singhs signatures and almost opposite the signatures of Berisal Singh. Hundreds of items of property recovered have been recorded in this memo. If in fact no property were recovered from the possession of Azizkhan and Yogendra Singh S. 1 was bent upon preparing a faked recovery memo, it is not believable that he would have mentioned hundreds of items of property in this document. Documents, which are forged and fabricated, are usually very short because there is less danger of the fabrication being detected in the case of a short document than in the case of longer one. The purpose of Yogendra Singh S.I. would have been served even if he had mentioned only a very few items of property in this list and it is not believable that Sri Yogendra Singh would take the trouble of writing four pages with hundreds of items of property when no property in fact was recovered from the possession of Aziz Khan. If the document were a faked one, attempt would have been made to get the signatures of the attesting witnesses almost at the bottom of the page and not almost in the beginning. In Ex. P. 72 it has been recorded that whatever had come to the share of this accused out of the looted property of Banwarilal Mahajan by way of clothes and ornaments of gold and silver had been placed by him in a box, which was locked and that that box was placed on the ground floor of his house in a room which faced east and that he would get that property recovered. According to Yogendra Singh S I. after this information, he proceeded with Aziz Khan, who got all the property mentioned in Ex. P. 27 recovered from his house. Yogendra Singh was examined at length. His evidence appears to be that of a truthful witness and I am perfectly satisfied by his evidence that the property mentioned in Ex. P. 27 was recovered from the house of Aziz Khan accused on the information supplied by him. It is ridiculous to suppose that hundreds of items of property, which are mentioned in Ex. P. 27 could have been planted on this accused. 24. P. 27 was recovered from the house of Aziz Khan accused on the information supplied by him. It is ridiculous to suppose that hundreds of items of property, which are mentioned in Ex. P. 27 could have been planted on this accused. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it would be very unsafe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Yogendra Singh in this respect, because he was a police officer and concerned with the investigation of the case. I do not think that the evidence of a witness should be discarded simply because he is a police officer and was charged with investigation of the case. Police Officers are not worse than ordinary human beings and it cannot be said that all of them are liars, just as it cannot be said that all of them are entirely truthful. The evidence of a witness is to be examined on its merits and if it is improbable or absurd, it would be difficult to believe that evidence from whatsoever quarter it might come. If it is natural, consistent and bears the ring of truth, there is no reason to disbelieve it simply because the witness is lowly placed or belongs to a particular department of the government. His Lordship Venkatarama Ayyar J. observed in the case of Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra (2) as follows— "The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds thereof. Such attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police." 25. It has also been held by this Court in Kanwarlal vs. State (2) that the evidence of a police officer cannot be discarded only because he is a police officer. A police officer is as good a witness as any other person unless there is something to show that his evidence is incorrect. I find that in the circumstances of the present case the evidence of Sri Yogendra Singh alone is quite sufficient to prove that the recovery was made, as stated by him and mentioned in the recovery memos Exs. P. 21 and 27. I find that in the circumstances of the present case the evidence of Sri Yogendra Singh alone is quite sufficient to prove that the recovery was made, as stated by him and mentioned in the recovery memos Exs. P. 21 and 27. The fact that the recoveries were made on 21st September, 1955 is proved by the evidence of Hira Singh P. W. 61 also, who has sworn that Yogendra Singh S. I. had brought Aziz Khan under arrest at about 7 p.m. on 21st September, 1955 to Chirawa police station and had also brought a sealed box containing the property which had been recovered and that Aziz Khan was lodged in the lock up and the said box was deposited in the Malkhana. In this Hira Singh has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. 26. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is altogether unbelievable that Aziz Khan should have furnished information contained in Ex. P. 72 without any rhyme or reason. It is true that ordinarily an offender is reluctant to disclose that he had taken any part in an offence. However, it all depends upon the handling of the situation by the officer responsible for investigation. It is the experience of the courts that in some cases offenders do make confessions and furnish informations necessary for the detection of the crime. It all depends upon the tact and skill of the investigating officers as to how to draw out true facts from the offenders themselves and I think the information which was obtained by Yogendra Singh from Azizkhan was the result of his tact and skill that the accused caused could be made to give an information which led to the discovery of the looted property. There was no necessity for Sri Yogendra Singh S. I. to fabricate the document Ex. P. 72, if in fact information bad not been given by Aziz Khan accused.............. I am therefore fully satisfied that the property by way of clothes and ornaments which was recovered from the possession of Aziz Khan on 21st September, 1955 was among the looted property. (c) Recovery of guns etc. 27. It has been established by the prosecution evidence of Yogendra Singh and Berisal Singh that three guns, two swords and a number of cartridges were recovered from the possession of Azizkhan. Azizkhan does not deny it. (c) Recovery of guns etc. 27. It has been established by the prosecution evidence of Yogendra Singh and Berisal Singh that three guns, two swords and a number of cartridges were recovered from the possession of Azizkhan. Azizkhan does not deny it. All that he says is that the broken sword Ex. P. 3 was not recovered from bis possession. So far as the recoveries of guns and cartridges and the swords Ex. P. 5 are concerns, I do not think that they are of any material assistance in the decision of this case. It has not been satisfactorily established that the guns recovered from the house of Azizkhan and sword Ex. 5 were the guns and sword used in the dacoity. All that the witnesses said was that the guns used at the time of the dacoity were like the guns seized from Azizkhan. However there may be quite a number of guns of the same type and the prosecution witnesses could not satisfactorily identify the guns used by the dacoits. This evidence is therefore of not much use. As regards camel also, I do not think the witnesses could have been so careful in the midst of the dacoity as to be able to identify the camel in such a way as to be able to identify it after some time. The recovery of sword Ex. P. 3 has however a very important bearing upon the case. According to Chiranjilal P.W. 12 he was given beating at the time of the dacoity with two sheathed swords Ex. P. 6, a small portion of a sheathed sword was recovered at the house of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal during the investigation. A somewhat broken sheathed sword Ex. 3 was recovered from the house of Azizkhan. Both these pieces were called by me and carefully examined and I am fully satisfied that the parts Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 3 are pieces of the same sword, as both these pieces when put together formed an entire sword. It is proved not only by the evidence of Yogendra Singh S.I., but also by that of Berisal Singh P. W. 16, who as said above was more inclined towards the defence than towards the prosecution that the piece of sword Ex. It is proved not only by the evidence of Yogendra Singh S.I., but also by that of Berisal Singh P. W. 16, who as said above was more inclined towards the defence than towards the prosecution that the piece of sword Ex. P. 3 was recovered from the bouse of Azizkhan on 21st September, 1955 at the time the police went therefore investigation of this case. It is proved by the evidence of Sri Hanuman P.W. 25 that the sword of which Ex. P. 3 was a part belonged to Azizkhan and it had been borrowed by him on one occasion for the purposes of a drama sometime before the occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve this witnesses. I am therefore fully satisfied that Ex. P. 3 belonged to Azizkhan and Ex P. 6 was another part of the same sword and that it had been left at the house of Banwarilal and Chiranjilal at the time of the dacoity in question. This is a very important piece of evidence to connect Azizkhan accused with the dacoity in question. 28. On a consideration of the entire evidence in the case regarding identification of accused and recovery of the articles, I am fully satisfied that Azizkhan accused was one of the dacoits who took part in the dacoity in question. (2) Kasim: Besides the evidence of the approver Richpal Singh which has been rejected by me above, there is the following evidence against this accused— (a) evidence of identification of the accused by the witnesses and (b) recovery of stolen property (a) Evidence of identification of the accused by witnesses— ............ The evidence is quite sufficient to prove beyond doubt that Kasim was among the party of persons who were concerned in the dacoity in question.......... I am fully satisfied that the identification was quite genuine and proper and the witnessess who identified this accused were in a position to recognise this accused at the time of the dacoity so as to be able to identify him subsequently. (2) Recovery of property— On the information supplied by this accused, clothes Exs. P. 271 to 299, 301 and 302 and ornaments Exs. P. 255 to 270-A, 265-A, and 265-B were recovered as stated by Sri Kalyan Singh S.I. P.W. 60 and Sri Hanuman Singh S.I. P.W. 47. The information supplied by this accused is contained in Ex. (2) Recovery of property— On the information supplied by this accused, clothes Exs. P. 271 to 299, 301 and 302 and ornaments Exs. P. 255 to 270-A, 265-A, and 265-B were recovered as stated by Sri Kalyan Singh S.I. P.W. 60 and Sri Hanuman Singh S.I. P.W. 47. The information supplied by this accused is contained in Ex. P. 67 recorded by Sri Kalyan Singh S.I. on 23rd September, 1955. The admissible portion in that statement when translated into English is as follows— "I concealed my share: of the property of the dacoity at Banwari at Mahajans house at Bhawatri by way of clothes and gold and silver ornaments in a bundle in a dhara in Azizkhans house under fodder. The gate of this house is towards south and is in my possession for storing fodder. I would point out the property on going there and would have it recovered." 29 Considering the evidence of identification of this witnesses along with the recovery of property, I am fully satisfied that this accused was one of the dacoits at the dacoity in question. (3) Jittu Singh: I am fully satisfied from the following evidence of identification of this accused by the witnesses and the recovery of property that he was also one of the dacoits at the dacoity in question. ......... I am fully satisfied from the evidence of identification and recovery of property against both these accused Sanwata and Prahlad that they were concerned in the dacoity in question. 30. Before dealing with the case of Banney Singh I may take note of one or two arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding identification of the several accused. It was argued that only a few of the witnesses produced at the identification parade had identified each of the accused and most of them had not. The identification should not therefore be held to be reliable. It is true that all the witnesses have not identified all the accused as those who participated in the dacoity in question. This however shows the bonafides of the identifying witnesses. If the accused had been shown to them before the identification, it would not have been difficult for all of them to identify almost all the accused. It is true that all the witnesses have not identified all the accused as those who participated in the dacoity in question. This however shows the bonafides of the identifying witnesses. If the accused had been shown to them before the identification, it would not have been difficult for all of them to identify almost all the accused. The fact that they identified only a few goes to show that the accused had not been shown to there before identification and that they bonafide identified only those accused whose picture they could retain in their minds. The fact that all the identifying witnesses could not identify all the accused does dot detract from the evidence of those witnesses who identified particular accused. 31. Then it was argued that only 22 under trials were mixed up with these six accused and that the identification could have been by mere accident. It is true that it would have been better if a larger number of under-trials had been mixed up with the accused. However one cannot expect the same ratio between the accused put for identification and the persons mixed with them in a case where the number of accused is large as in a case where the number of accused is one or two. There is greater probability of a single accused being identified by chance if he is mixed up only with two or three other persons. There is much less probability if the number of accused is 10 or 12 and they are mixed up with 20 or 25 other persons. I therefore do not think that simply because 22 other persons were mixed up with six accused, identification has been by mere accident. After all the number of other persons mixed was quite substantial looking to the number of the accused who were to be identified. 32. Now I take up the case of Banney Singh. The evidence against him is as follows: — (1) Identification at the identification parade and in court. (2) Recovery of two camels, one from the possession of Man Singh and the other from the possession of Ramswaroop. (3) Recovery of other property. ............I am fully satisfied from this evidence that the camel which was produced in court daring the trial with its saddle etc. (2) Recovery of two camels, one from the possession of Man Singh and the other from the possession of Ramswaroop. (3) Recovery of other property. ............I am fully satisfied from this evidence that the camel which was produced in court daring the trial with its saddle etc. was that which had been taken away from Banwarilals house on the date of the dacoity and that it came into possession of Banney Singh after the dacoity. Although it is not proved beyond doubt that Banney Singh was one of the dacoits, yet it raises a very strong presumption that Banney Singh obtained the possession of this camel with knowledge or at least reason to believe that it was the camel taken away at the dacoity. It may be noted that the dacoity took place on the 2nd Sept., 1955, whereas this camel was disposed of by Banney Singh on the 26th September, 1955 (vide receipt Ex. 32), that is within less than a month. He was, therefore, in possession of this camel shortly after the dacoity. He has not justified his possession of this camel but has dishonestly denied its possession. Learned counsel for the appellants conceded that if the evidence of identification of Banney Singh is not believed and it is held only that the camel was seen in his possession soon after the dacoity in question, Banney Singh can be convicted u/s 412, I.P.C. I, therefore, hold that Banney Singh is guilty of an offence under sec. 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 33. Before concluding this judgment I consider it proper to express my appreciation of the part played by the S. P. Sri N. C. Dutt, and Sri Kalyan Singh and Yogendra Singh Sub-Inspectors, but for whose promptness and tactful handling of the situation the culprits would probably not have been brought to book. 34. The appeal so far as Aziz Khan, Kasim, Jittu Singh Sanwata and Prahlad are concerned, is dismissed, and their conviction u/s 395, I.P.C. and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment each which is by no means severe are maintained. The appeal is partly allowed so far as Banney Singh is concerned. His conviction u/s 395, I.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted instead u/s 412, I.P.C. His sentence is reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment.