Judgment B.S.Sinha, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1974 is a regular Appeal filed by two appellants, namely, Nasrul Mian and Sismohammad Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1974 is an appeal from jail on behalf of four persons, namely, Ramamal Pahadia, Surya Palladia, Chandu Palladia and Gangi Gangu Pahadia. As both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment. 2. The appellants appeal against their conviction under Sec.396 and sentence of life imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the night between the 17th May, 1970, and the 18th May, 1970. about 60 to 80 dacoits including these appellants raided village Jamalo within Sunder Pahadia police station of the district of Santhal parganas. In groups they raided and ransacked the houses of various persons, as for example, P.W.I (informant) Barku Tudu Suphal, Motka, Pagan, Chodu, Motku Hindu and Dhanwa Pradhan. They looted grains, clothes, utensils, chickens and goats During the commission of the dacoity, they also assaulted and killed pradhan Dawa Tudu whose daughter is P. W. 16 (Bita Tudu). 4. According to the informant, he woke up on hearing the dogs barking. It was a moon-lit night and he saw the dacoits coming in large numbers. Therefore, he ran towards south tola and from there he went to Puhadia Basti where he collected about 12 to 14 persons and then returned to the villag. The dacoits were retreating by then. They gave chase to the dacoits. While fleeing away, the dacoits threw away some of the articles which they had taken, and carried away the rest. When the informant returned, he found Dawa Tudu lying dead in a field. 5. After the usual investigation by the police, charge-sheet was submitted in which two persons were shown as absconding, namely, Kaliya Pahadia and Kenu Mahesha. It appears further that Kaliya Pahadia subsequently surrendered and he was also put up on trial along with other six appellants. He was however acquitted by the trial Court. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 20 witnesses which included two doctors, P. W. 3, who conducted the postmortem examination and P. W. 30 Dr. Krishnanand Kumar who examined two of the villagers who were injured during the commission of the dacoity. He was however acquitted by the trial Court. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 20 witnesses which included two doctors, P. W. 3, who conducted the postmortem examination and P. W. 30 Dr. Krishnanand Kumar who examined two of the villagers who were injured during the commission of the dacoity. Injured witnesses examined are P. W. 4, Ramdhan Hembrom, P. W. 7, Bindu Soran and P. W. 14, Motku Morandi. Eye witnesses who identified some of the dacoits are P. Ws. 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 16, It may also be mentioned that the evidence of three witnesses, namely, Pathari Morandi, Ravi Tudi and Lukhe Murmu who were examined before the committing Court have been tendered under Sec.33 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to P. W. 14, Pathari has disappeared and is not traceable, and, according to P. W. 16, Rani Tudu and Lukhe Mormu have also disappeared and they cannot be traced. The prosecution also filed documents in support of its case. 7. The defence of the appellants at the trial was that they had been falsely implicated due to some dispute over cattle grazing in the field. Some of the appellants have alleged that some of them are traders and they had not been given money for some of the articles they had supplied to these witnesses. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence and materials, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above and further acquitted Kaliya. 8. That dacoity took place an the night of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution at village Jamalo admits of no doubt, and, indeed, the factum of dacoity has not been seriously challenged before us. Apart from the eye witnesses, there are other witnesses, for example, P. Ws. 1 and 13, who claimed to have seen the dacoits in the village ransacking the houses and looting grains, clothes, utensils and domestic animals. It further appears from the evidence that at least two persons, Bindu Soren (P. W.7) and Matku Morandi (P. W. 14) had sustained injuries at the hands of the dacoits and they had been examined by a doctor. P. W. 13, who is the village Choukidar has also stated that he saw injuries on the person of five villagers, namely, Motka Morandi, Marwari Morandi, Nunu Hambrom, Babu Ram Tudu and Bindu Saran. P. W. 13, who is the village Choukidar has also stated that he saw injuries on the person of five villagers, namely, Motka Morandi, Marwari Morandi, Nunu Hambrom, Babu Ram Tudu and Bindu Saran. The dead body was also found when the police visited the place of occurrence and the evidence of the doctor shows that the deceased had been killed near about the time of occurrence. According to P. W. 16, Dawa Tudu was first beaten in his house and then taken out and beaten to death with lathi. The evidence of doctor shows that apart from one injury, he had four injuries on his person which were all by lathi. There was extensive echomnysis of the right side of his chest and fracture of 7 ribs i.e., from the 2nd to 8th rib on the right side on the anterior portion with tearing of pleura at places on the right side. There was large amount of fluid blood and blood clots on the right side of thorax and also in the abdominal cavity. The right lung was lacerated at places. The liver was also torn at places. There were infilteration of dark fluid blood and blood clots in the tissues just beneath and surrounding the injuries. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforementioned injuries and specially of those on chest and abdomen. In juries on chest and abdomen were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. It may further be noted that the articles which were alleged to have been thrown by the dacoits were seized by the police when the place of occurrence was visited by them on next day. All these clearly establish that dacoity had been committed on. the night of occurrence in the village. 9. The next question which falls for consideration is whether murder committed during the commission of the dacoity. I have already stated that according to the prosecution during; the commission of the dacoity, Dawa Tudu who was the Pradhan of the village was killed by the dacoits. P. W. 1, who had run away and. had obtained help and then chased the dacoits. In his Fard-Beyan he stated that after chasing away the dacoits when he returned to the village he found in the village the dead body of Dawa Tudu who had been killed by the dacoits. P. W. 1, who had run away and. had obtained help and then chased the dacoits. In his Fard-Beyan he stated that after chasing away the dacoits when he returned to the village he found in the village the dead body of Dawa Tudu who had been killed by the dacoits. He had deposed to that extent in his evidence as well. There is nothing in his cross-examination which would discredit the evidence. P. W. 16, Bita Tudu, is the daughter of the deceased. She has stated that on the night of the occurrence a number of dacoits entered her house and they were armed with lathis, bhujalis and torch-lights. They took away clothes, utensils and grains from her house and that her father was assaulted by Keto Pahadia and the appellant Rama Pahadia. She has further said that while assaulting, they took away her father to a bamboo clum which was behind her house and assaulted him to death. She has remained unshaken in her cross-examination. I have already referred to the deposition of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination which fits in with the prosecution case. Accordingly I have no doubt that during the commission of the dacoity, Pradhan Dawa Tudu was killed by the dacoits. 10. Having held that dacoity was committed in the village in which Dawa Tudu was killed it remains to be considered whether the appellants had participated in the commission of the crime. Witnesses with regard to the commission of the dacoity are P. Ws. 4, 6, 7, 13,14 and 16. There were three witnesses, namely, Pathari Morandi, Ravi Tudi and Lukhe Mura who were also examined before the committing Court. Their evidence has been tendered under Sec.33 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that they have since disappeared. It has been stated by P. W. 14, Matku Morandi, that Patbari Morandi had disappeared and was no longer traceable. Similarly, P. W. 16, Bita Tudu, has deposed that Ravi Tudu and Lukhe Murtnu have also disappeared and were not traceable. These statements of the two witnessess have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. It must, therefore, be held that Patbari, Ravi and Lukhe have disappeared after giving their evidence in the committing Court, and, as such, their evidence tendered under Sec.33 would be admissible in the case. These statements of the two witnessess have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. It must, therefore, be held that Patbari, Ravi and Lukhe have disappeared after giving their evidence in the committing Court, and, as such, their evidence tendered under Sec.33 would be admissible in the case. All these witnesses whom I have mentioned above have spoken about the commission of the dacoity and they have further named the dacoits whom they recognised during the commission of the dacoity. They have all stated that these persons, whom they recognised by name lived in the neighbourhood of one and a half miles in different villages, and they had occasion to see and know them. In this context particular reference might be made to the two appellants of criminal appeal 23 of 1974, namely, Nasrul Mian and Sismohammad. According to the witnesses, who identified them by name they used to come to the village to do some business as they used to sell cattle and other things. The evidence of these witnesses has been placed before us and no serious comment has been made against their credibility. The general comment made is that it is rather improbable that known persons would commit dacoity without taking any precaution to cover their identities particularly when it was a moonlit night, and, according to the prosecution the dacoits were freely flashing torch lights. Merely because some known persons had not taken precaution to conceal their identities it is not possible to reject the testimony of the witness. if the evidence of those witnesses is otherwise reliable then their evidence cannot be discarded on this ground alone because it is quite probable that some persons might be bold or rash enough to commit crimes without concealing their identities. All these witnesses have stated that they woke up on hearing the barking of the dogs as the dacoits were entering the village. One or two of them have said that they got up when actually the dacoits entered in their house. However no discrepancy has been pointed out with regard to any of them regarding the occurrence, as they have deposed to in their evidence. Coming to the case of the individual participants it would be enough to refer to a chart which is to be found in the Judgment of the trial Court which according to counsel for the parties is correct. Coming to the case of the individual participants it would be enough to refer to a chart which is to be found in the Judgment of the trial Court which according to counsel for the parties is correct. Two appellants of criminal appeal 23 of 1974, namely, Nasrul Mian and Sismohammad have been identified by three witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 4,7 and 14. Ramamal Pahadia has been named by P. Ws. 6, 7, 14 and 16. With regard to him it may further be stated that he was also mentioned as a participant in the crime by Patbari, Ravi and Lukhe whose evidence have been tendered under Sec.33 of the Evidence Act. Surya Pahadia, Chandu Pahadia and Ganeu Pahadia have been named by P. Ws. 7 and 14. Kaliya Pahadia who was not named by any one has already been acquitted. It will therefore be seen that while Ramamal Pahadia has been named by seven persons, appellant Nasrul and Sismoham-made have been named by three witnesses and the remaining by two witnesses. In such a situation, I have no doubt that all the appellants had participated in the commission of the crime and are guilty of offences under Sec.396 of the Indian Penal Code. The suggestion of enmity have remained in the realm of suggestion and cannot be accepted. 11. In the result, the convictions and sentences of the appellants are affirmed and both the appeals are dismissed. Manoranjan Prasad, J. 12 I agree.