S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 1982 (Anand Babu Gupta v. The State of M. P.) and 1051 of 1982 (Ramashraya alias Thakur sb Narayan Passi v. The State of M. P.), respectively. ( 2 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1981, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, by his judgment dated 9/6/1982 acquitted three accused and convicted the other three, namely, Ramashraya, Anand Babu and Shankerlal for an offence ender Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing them on the question of sentence, he sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Against that conviction and sentence these three who have been convicted, have preferred separate appeals. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that in the night intervening 20th and 21st May 1981 Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1), his wife Khalikun Bi (P W. 2) and daughter Fatima (P. W. 4) were sleeping in the ANGAN of their house in village Chora, police station Sohagi. Gulam Rasul's servant Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) was also sleeping there. It is said that at about 11. 30 P. M. one of the culprits entered into the ANGAN from over the wall of Gulam Rasuls house. He then unchained the door from inside and thus the door was opened. Thereafter the other culprits also entered the house. At that time Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2) was awakened and on her shouting the other inmates also woke, up. The culprits surrounded Gulam Rasul and Khalikun Bi. One of them, at the point of pistol, asked Khalikun Bi to show the property. On her saying that the property was in the trunk, the culprits demanded the key which was handed over by Khalikun Bi. Then the culprits entered in that room and after opening the lock of the trunk took out 18 silver LACHCHHAS. Some of the culprits snatched the BANIYAN of Masuriyadeen which contained Rs. 50/- in a pocket. At that time some of the culprits had inflicted a knife blow on the hand of Masuriyadeen. ( 4 ) AFTER thus looting, the culprits fled away from there. Some of the culprits snatched the BANIYAN of Masuriyadeen which contained Rs. 50/- in a pocket. At that time some of the culprits had inflicted a knife blow on the hand of Masuriyadeen. ( 4 ) AFTER thus looting, the culprits fled away from there. At that time Khalikun Bi from the roof of her house shouted that the dacoits, are running away after looting.- Some persons tried to chase them but owing to the firing by the culprits, the villagers did not pursue the chase. Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) then left the village and reached police chouki Sonari which facts under Police Station Sohagi. At the Police chouki be lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1 in the same night intervening 20th and 21st May 1981, which was recorded at 1. 15 A. M. This report was recorded by A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 12 ). The A. S. I. then left. the Police chouki and reached village Chora in the night itself. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged that the dacoits after fleeing away from Chora committed a dacoity in the house of one Lalita Prasad in Tola Derhiya and after looting the property ran away towards Badhokhar hillock. Some persons of Derhiya tola in an attempt to find out Lalita Prasad reached the P AHI in village Badhokhar of Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8 ). (PAHI is said to be a hutment meant for temporary residence etc. , in the field ). This Aditya Prasad is resident of Behrecha, but was present at this PARI on that night. Badokhar is about four miles or so from village Chora. As stated by Aditya Prasad, Lalita Prasads son had been married in the family of Radhika Prasad who lived in tola Itriyan. They therefore went to the house of Radhika Prasad where Lalita Prasad had come to join some feast. Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8) informed Lalita Prasad about the dacoity. Because of the feast at the house of Radhika Prasad, quite a large number of people were present there. All those persons formed into different groups and proceeded in search of the dacoits. ( 6 ) A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad. (P. W. 12) having learnt of this dacoity at the house of Lalita Prasad in tola Derhiya came from Chora to tola Derhiya. It was at 3. All those persons formed into different groups and proceeded in search of the dacoits. ( 6 ) A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad. (P. W. 12) having learnt of this dacoity at the house of Lalita Prasad in tola Derhiya came from Chora to tola Derhiya. It was at 3. 15 A. M. that Lalita Prasad lodged report about the dacoity to A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad. This report was sent by the A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad to Police Station, Sohagi. The A. S. I. also having come to know that the dacoits have fled away towards the jungle of Badokhar hillock, he along with others also proceeded in that direction. ( 7 ) THE prosecution case further is that Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8) along with others sat on the road leading towards Allahabad. This was at a short distance from Tudiyar river. After some time two persons came from towards river and on Aditya Prasads asking them as to who they were, those two started running. At this Aditya Prasad and others caught hold of those two persons one of whom was appellant Anand Babu and the other Bechulal who has been acquitted. Aditya Prasad and others tied down the hands of Anand Babu and Bechulal. From these two, they further came to know that their other two associates are on the other bank of the river. Accordingly, Aditya Prasad and Ramgopal went to search them. In the meantime they saw two persons running towards the hillock. On seeing this, these two shouted at which the other 25 to 30 persons also joined them, one of whom, namely, Kallu Singh was armed with a gun. This Kallu Singh threatened those two who were running to stop otherwise he would fire at them. On this threat, appellant Ramashraya who had a KATTA and cartridges, stopped running and thus he was caught hold of and tied down. Shambhunath who is an acquitted accused jumped into a tank, but he also was apprehended. As stated by Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8), while they were coming towards Badokhar, they learnt that a person had been asking from children of tender age about the persons apprehended by the villagers. At this the children shouted that there is one more dacoit. When these persons ran towards him that culprit also climbed the hillock and started pelting stones. At this the children shouted that there is one more dacoit. When these persons ran towards him that culprit also climbed the hillock and started pelting stones. That dacoit was also apprehended with the aid of the labourers who had been plucking tendu leaves. That dacoit was appellant Shankerlal. ( 8 ) ALL the aforesaid five persons, namely, Anand Babu, Bechulal, Ramashraya, Shambhunath and Shankerlal were handed over to A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad. He seized a KATTA vide memorandum Ex. P. 8 from appellant Ramashraya. A cartridge was found loaded in the KATTA and another cartridge was seized from the appellants pocket. These culprits were sent to Police chouki Sonari and Mahesh Prasad returned back to Chora where he proceeded with the investigation of the dacoity committed at the house of Gulam Rasul. There he recorded the statements of some witnesses and, effected certain seizures. ( 9 ) STATION House Officer Shri Sadhulal Sharma (P. W. 13) of P. S. Sohagi on getting the information about the dacoities, reached Chota where he met A. S. I. Mahesh Prasad. From there he went to Derbiya where dacoity was committed in the house of Lalita Prasad. He had come to know that five dacoits have been apprehended and had already been sent to police chouki Sonari. Sadhulal Sharma, therefore came to police chouki Sonan After interrogation he seized a BANIYAN from acquitted accused Bechulal vide memorandum Ex. P. 9. From appellant Shankerlal he seized a pair of shoes vide memorandum Ex. P. 7. The sixth accused Khalik who also has been acquitted, was arrested at Allahabad on 11. 7. 1981 by S. H. O. Sadhulal (P. W. 13 ). Two LACHCHHAS were also seized on his alleged information. ( 10 ) MASURIYADEEN (P. W. 3) had been sent to the hospital for examination of his injuries. Dr. A. P. Pathak (P. W. 1) on 22-5-1982 after examining Masuriyadeen found a lacerated wound I x 2 x 3 over the lateral aspect of left elbow joint, the duration of which was within 24 to 48 hours. It was a simple injury and could be caused by a bard and blunt object. On 22-5-1981 itself he bad also examined appellant Anand Babu who had ten bruises of different dimensions on different parts of his body besides an abrasion and a lacerated wound. The report in that behalf is Ex. D. 5. It was a simple injury and could be caused by a bard and blunt object. On 22-5-1981 itself he bad also examined appellant Anand Babu who had ten bruises of different dimensions on different parts of his body besides an abrasion and a lacerated wound. The report in that behalf is Ex. D. 5. Appellant Shankerlal was also examined on 22-5-1981 who had two lacerated wounds, multiple bruises and an abrasion. These injuries were of different dimensions on different parts of the body as have been described in the report Ex. P. D. 8. The duration of these injuries also was within 24 to 48 hours. Appellant Ramashraya was also examined on the same date and even he had three lacerated wounds, four abrasions ljnd an abrasion of different dimensions on different parts of the body, the duration of which was within 24 to 48 hours. The report in that behalf is Ex. D. 9. ( 11 ) THE two acquitted accused, namely, Shambhunath and Bechulal had also been sent for examination and Dr. Pathak had examined them. They also had injuries as have been stated respectively in Ex. D. 6 and Ex. D. 7. As stated by Dr. Pathak (P. W. 9), these accused were examined between 10. 45 and 11. 30 P. M. of 22. 5. 1981 and held been sent by the Police for medical examination. ( 12 ) IDENTIFICATION parade of the accused was conducted on 26-6-1981 in Central Jail, Rewa by Naib Tahsildar Ramadhar Shukla (P. W. 14 ). As stated by this witness, this identification was in relation to two cases. The sixth accused, namely, Khalik was not put up for identification. As has come in the evidence of Gulam Rasul and others, this accused Khalik was a resident of village Chora and was known to Gulam Rasul. A pair of shoes which had been seized from appellant Shankerlal vide memorandum Ex. P. 7 and a BANIY AN seized from acquitted accused Bechulal vide memorandum Ex. P. 9 and the LACHCHHAS seized from acquitted accused Khalik were sent for identification. The identification proceedings were conducted by Sarpanch Nageshwar Singh (P. W. 10 ). ( 13 ) HEAD Constable Shyam Bihari (P. W. 11) was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Sohagi from 1978. P. 9 and the LACHCHHAS seized from acquitted accused Khalik were sent for identification. The identification proceedings were conducted by Sarpanch Nageshwar Singh (P. W. 10 ). ( 13 ) HEAD Constable Shyam Bihari (P. W. 11) was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Sohagi from 1978. He has stated that accused Ramashraya, Anand Babu, Shankerlal, Shambhunath and Bechulal had been brought to the police station at about the mid-night. They had been brought BAPARDA, the entry about which had been made by Sub-Inspector Sadhulal (P. W. 13) in ROZNAMCHA SAHANA No. 672. It was marked as Ex. P. 11. He has further stated about the change of duties and the entries made in the ROZNAMCHA about it. According to him when these accused were taken out for easing themselves, they were kept BAPARDA and has also proved the relevant entries. He has further proved the other relevant entries to show that the accused were being taken out BAPARDA on different occasions. The different entries for different dates with regard to the accused being kept BAPARDA have elaborately been stated by this witness in his evidence, including the occasion when they were taken for remand or any of them was taken for interrogation and recoveries. ( 14 ) APPELLANT Ramashraya in his examination denied the prosecution allegations. His version was that he, Bechulal, Anand Babu and Shankerlal had come by bus from Allahabad and on getting down at Chakghat, they were drinking water and were preparing to go to Maihar. At that time the police caught hold of them. Shambhunath had also arrived there who also was arrested by the police. Then the police took them to the THANA as also to the places where dacoities had been committed and to Tyothar. Appellants Anand Babu and Shankerlal have also given more or less a similar version. However, appellant Shankerlal had further stated that his wife also was with him. The police while arresting them abused his wife and made her to return back. He denied that he had been kept BAPARDA. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. ( 15 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 843 of 1982 was filed from Jail. Shri S. S. Bisen, advocate, was appointed by the office as a counsel for the appellant, who was not represented. Even Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 1982 was filed by appellant Anand Babu from jail. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. ( 15 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 843 of 1982 was filed from Jail. Shri S. S. Bisen, advocate, was appointed by the office as a counsel for the appellant, who was not represented. Even Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 1982 was filed by appellant Anand Babu from jail. However, it appears that subsequently Shri R. N. Roy, advocate, filed his memorandum of appearance on behalf of this appellant Anand Babu. Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 1982, on behalf of Ramashraya alias Thakur, had been filed through counsel, whose memorandum is in the record. Appellants Shankerlal and Anand Babu who are the appellants in Criminal Appeals No. 843 and 844 of 1982, respectively, had been produced in custody. They as also their respective counsel were heard. Counsel for Ramashraya (Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 1982) was also heard. ( 16 ) LEARNED trial Judge foulid it to be proved that a dacoity had been committed at the house of Gulam Rasul in the night intervening 20th and 21st May 1981. In this case he bas referred to the evidence and the circumstances in support of that finding. Besides the evidence of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1 ). Khalikun Hi (P. W. 2), Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) and Fatima (P. W. 41 who were the inmates of the house wherein the dacoity was committed, there also is evidence of Nathuram (P. W. 5) who has stated that after hearing the shouts he also had gone to the house of Gulam Rasul, but after the dacoity. Baijnath (P. W. 6) also visited the house of Gulam Rasul after when the dacoits had flied away. The F. I. R. lodged by Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) also corroborates his version about the dacoity having been committed. The find of the injuries on the person of Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) also lends support to his testimony. Masuryadeen also states about the dacoity having been committed in that night at Gulam Rasul's house. The evidence of these witnesses clearly makes out that the number of the culprits was more than five. The evidence therefore, supports the finding of the learned trial Judge that a dacoity had in that night been committed at the house of Gulam Rasul. This finding was not even seriously challenged in these appeals. The evidence of these witnesses clearly makes out that the number of the culprits was more than five. The evidence therefore, supports the finding of the learned trial Judge that a dacoity had in that night been committed at the house of Gulam Rasul. This finding was not even seriously challenged in these appeals. ( 17 ) THE conviction of the appellants is in fact based on their identification by the witnesses. Appellant Shankarlal was identified by Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1), Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2) Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) and Fatima (P. W. 4) in the identification proceedings. In the Court Gulam Rasul (P. W. I), Khalikum Bi (P. W. 2) and Fatima (P. W. 4) identified appellant Shankerlal. So far as Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) is concerned, he had pointedly identified appellants Ramashraya and Anand Babu and another acquitted accused, but made a general statement that all the accused in the court were present in the dacoity. Appellant Shankerlal was thus not pointedly identified by Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3 ). Appellant Ramashraya was identified in the identification proceedings by Khalikun Bi, (P. W. 2), Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) and Fatima (P. W. 4 ). He was identified by these witnesses even in the Court. However, appellant Ramashraya was identified by Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) during his evidence in the Court. Appellant Anand Babu was identified in the identification proceedings by Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1), Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2) and Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3 ). Appellant Anand Babu was identified by Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) and Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) in the Court. Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2) did not identify appellant Anand Babu in the Court. ( 18 ) IN the evidence of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1), Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2), Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) and Fatima (P. W. 4) have consistently stated that the dacoits had torches with them which were being flashed in the house at the time of the dacoity. In the First Information Report, Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) had clearly mentioned that the dacoits were seen in the light of the torch and the moon. This corroborates the version of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) in the Court. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants challenged the claim of these witnesses about their having identified the respective appellants. This corroborates the version of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) in the Court. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants challenged the claim of these witnesses about their having identified the respective appellants. A challenge was also made to the proceedings relating to identification on the grounds that the persons who had been mixed were not similar to the persons sought to be identified and that there are grounds to indicate that the appellants could easily be identified. In this connection, it was further alleged that the witnesses had ample opportunity to see the appellants prior to the identification parade. Yet another submission was that the witnesses had deliberately implicated acquitted accused Khalik who was a resident of the same village and was not named in the first information report Ex. P. 8. To further support the false implication of the appellants in the dacoity it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that if, as the prosecution alleges the appellants had been apprehended soon after this dacoity, some or the other looted property should have been recovered or seized from them. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel had referred to the evidence also. ( 20 ) IDENTIFICATION, proceedings were conducted by Naib Tahsildar Ramadhar Shukla (P. W. 14) who had prepared the memorandum Ex. P. 3 in that behalf. He has stated that prior to the holding of the identification proceedings, some chits had been pasted on the faces of the accused sought to be identified as also on the faces of the other 40 persons who were mixed with the accused for conducting the identification proceedings. He has further stated that, the accused as also the persons mixed in that identification proceedings were covered from the foot till the neck by blankets. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that no chits were pasted on the faces of the accused persons as also the suggestion that the persons mixed were not of more or less similar description. The defects that were sought to be pointed out from the cross-examination of this witness Shri Shukla, cannot, in my opinion make the identification proceedings a force. In my opinion such things cannot be taken to be such dissimilarities so as to enable a witness to identify a culprit. The defects that were sought to be pointed out from the cross-examination of this witness Shri Shukla, cannot, in my opinion make the identification proceedings a force. In my opinion such things cannot be taken to be such dissimilarities so as to enable a witness to identify a culprit. ( 21 ) HEAD Constable Shyam Bihari (P. W. 11) has in his evidence given out the details supported by the roznamcha entries of different dates about the accused persons having been taken out of the police Jock up and being sent to the Court etc. BAP ARDA. In his cross-examination, he had categorically denied the suggestion that the accused persons were shown to the witnesses on 21- 5-1981 or on subsequent dates thereafter when they were taken to the Court. He further denied that the accused were shown to the witnesses in the police Jock up. He further denied that false entries were made in the roznamcha about the accused having been kept BAFARDA. Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) Khalikun Bi (P. W. 2), Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) and Fatima (P. W. 4) have also denied in their evidence that the accused person had been shown to them prior to the holding of the identification proceedings. Their evidence clearly makes out that each one of them had sufficient opportunity to identify the accused inasmuch as that while committing the dacoity they were moving quite close to these witnesses. As already found it was a moon-ht night and the torches were also being flashed. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the testimony of these witnesses who had identified the respective appellants in the identification proceedings as also during evidence in the Court. Tb-e mere fact that acquitted accused Khalik had also been implicated and his name was not mentioned in the first information report, would not in the circumstances be sufficient to reject the testimony of these witnesses with regard to the present appellants. ( 22 ) THE submission that when these appellants were apprehended, no lathi or torch was seized from any of them is in my opinion of no consequence. The appellants or the acquitted accused were not apprehended while running away from the house of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) but were apprehended after some alleged incident at another place which is at some distance from village Chora. The appellants or the acquitted accused were not apprehended while running away from the house of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) but were apprehended after some alleged incident at another place which is at some distance from village Chora. Even at this stage, the culprits had to be chased and some of them could not even be apprehended. Two silver LACHCHHAS and a pair of shoes have been ordered to be delivered by the learned trial Judge to Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) and a BANIYAN to Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3 ). The non recovery or seizure of any lathi etc. , or the torches from any of the appellants by itself would not be enough to dis-credit the consistent evidence of the eye witnesses. Masuriyadeen (P. W. 3) had even received an injury which further strengthens his testimony. ( 23 ) THE other fact, which lends assurance to the commission of the dacoity at the house of Gulam Rasul (P. W. 1) is the fact that these appellants were apprehended after the alleged incident at another place in the same night. A KATTA was seized from appellant Ramashraya vide memorandum Ex. P. 8. This KATTA was then loaded with a cartridge and another cartridge was seized from appellants pocket. These appellants had tried to run away, but were apprehended in the manner and the circumstances, which have already been narrated above. Their plea that they had come by bus from Allahabad and had got down at Chakghat to drink water and were preparing to go to Maihar stands amply falsified by the evidence of Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8 ). Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of Aditya Prasad (P. W. 8) to even probabilise that he will have any reason to falsely implicate these appellants. These appellants had subsequently been taken by a Police Officer to the Police Station, which is borne out from the evidence of Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 12), Sadhu Lal (P. W. 13) and Head Constable Shyam Bihari (P. W. 11) who had even made necessary entry in the roznamcha. These appellants had subsequently been taken by a Police Officer to the Police Station, which is borne out from the evidence of Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 12), Sadhu Lal (P. W. 13) and Head Constable Shyam Bihari (P. W. 11) who had even made necessary entry in the roznamcha. ( 24 ) IN my opinion, therefore, in view of the evidence and the material on record, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for Before parting, may add that any finding given or observation made in this judgment shall not be made use of against these appellants or any other accused who may be tried in respect to the other alleged dacoity committed in that night at the house of Lalita Prasad in village Tala Derhiya, which shall be decided on the evidence as may be adduced in that case. ( 25 ) CONSEQUENTLY, these three appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The convictions and sentences of the appellants are up-held. Appeal dismissed. .