JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J. 1. Mr. Brahma Singh, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, by his order dated 29-1-1979 convicted the five appellants of this case under section 396, IPC and sentenced each one of them to 10 years' R. I. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. In the night between 12/13-1-1979 at about mid-night Bhagwan Das complainant and members of his family were sleeping inside their house in village Nagla Chain Sukh, which is a hamlet of village Briya and lies within the police station Auraiya, district Etawah. One of the sons of the complainant, namely Ravindra Nath was sleeping in the Atari on the roof of the house. There was lantern lighted in the house. A Gobar Gas plant had been fixed at the house of the complainant's neighbour namely Shree Ram and a bulb was lighted there. The complainant heard some noise and got up. He found some dacoits throwing torch light on the roof of his house, Simultaneously he heard cries of Ravindra Nath from the roof. He was crying for help. The miscreants started firing. Ram Das son of the complainant and the complainant himself tried to go up the stairs but there was. indiscriminate firing by the miscreants and thus they were prevented from going up. They, however, raised cries from the place they were at and the villagers-Rajendra, Ram Babu, Sita Ram, Shyam Lal, Ram Shanker, Ram Bux, Hira Lal, Soney Lal, Sri Ram, Din Dayal, Nam Sukh, Sobran, Ram Singh and others were attracted. They all came armed with lathis and lighting their torches. Bundles of Karab were lying infront of the house of Shri Ram, just in the neighbourhood of the house of the complainant. Ram Das put fire to the same and thus created sufficient light. When the pressure of the villagers became strong, the dacoits fled away west-ward after looting about 9 houses in the neighbour-hood. It may also be mentioned here that Balwan had put fire to another Karab load which had been stacked near his house and that had also generated sufficient light. The entire dacoity took about one hour to complete. There were 10 to 12 dacoits who were variously armed with guns, lathis, pistols, kantas, spears, Kulharis etc. Some of them were recognized by the complainant and other witnesses in the light on the spot. The entire dacoity took about one hour to complete. There were 10 to 12 dacoits who were variously armed with guns, lathis, pistols, kantas, spears, Kulharis etc. Some of them were recognized by the complainant and other witnesses in the light on the spot. Amongst them, Brijendra, Ram Autar, Shri Ram and Radhey Shyam were named in the FIR. Nothing was looted from the house of the complainant. The neighbouring houses of Rajendra, Shri Ram, Sita Ram, Shyam Lal, Ram Shanker, Ram Babu and Daya Ram were looted. As a result of the firing by the dacoits, Ravindra Nath and Rajendra sustained gun shot injuries. Smt. Sita Shree, wife of Sita Ram received a lathi injury. Ravindra Nath's condition was precarious. Bhagwan Das got the FIR scribed by Balwan in the village and alongwith it he proceeded to the police station asking the villagers to bring Ravindra Nath and other injured in a bullock cart to the police station. At 8.30 A.M. on 13-1-1979 FIR Ext. ka 1 was lodged in the Thana and the case was registered. Mr. Avadhesh Kumar Upadhyaya, S.H.O. conducted the investigation. Meanwhile, the bullock cart carrying the dead-body of Ravindra Nath and other injured arrived at the police station Auraiya. Ravindra Nath died in the way and the case was converted into one under section 396, IPC at 9.15 A.M., Mr. Upadhyaya held the inquest and sent the dead-body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. He then recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and prepared a site plan. He took blood-stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence and ashes from two places vide Exts. 9 and 10. Torches of Parmal, Munshi Lal, Shri Ram and Soney Lal were taken into custody and were returned back after preparing the memos Ext. ka 24 to ka 27. 8 pellets were recovered from the scene of occurrence, vide Ext. 7. Dr. D. K. Saxena (PW 1.3) on 14-1-1978 at about 11.55 A. M. conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Ravindranath vide Ext. ka-20 and found that this young man of 25 years had three gun shot wounds and one abrasion on his body and his death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of these injuries. He extracted two pellets from the dead-body. 3. Injured Surendra Kumar and Smt. Sita Shree were examined by Dr. ka-20 and found that this young man of 25 years had three gun shot wounds and one abrasion on his body and his death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of these injuries. He extracted two pellets from the dead-body. 3. Injured Surendra Kumar and Smt. Sita Shree were examined by Dr. Charanjit Singh (PW 2) at the State Dispensary, Auraiya on 13-1-1978 at 10 A. M. and 12.20 A. M., respectively. Their injury reports are Ext. ka 2 and ka 3. Surendra Kumar had multiple gun shot wounds of entry (41 in number) on the front of right arm, elbow, joint right fore-arm, and multiple gun shot wounds of entry (26 in number) on the left side of chest and left upper arm. The Doctor was of the opinion that these injuries were caused by some fire-arm. X-ray was advised. 4. Smt. Sita Shree, wife of Sita Ram, had one contusion 9 cm. x 1 cm. on the top of the right shoulder and the Doctor was of the opinion that it was caused by a blunt weapon. It was simple in nature and was half a day old. On 4-2-1.978 the Investigating Officer learnt about the complicity of the accused Pratap in this case. He promptly arrested him and put him under cover. The Investigating Officer on 2-4-1978 at 8 P.M. recovered from his possession a Razai cover (Ext. 1) vide memo Ext. Ka 28. It was sealed. Then he was brought Baparda to the Thana where he was lodged in the lock-up and the recovered articles were placed in the Malkhana. Next day, he was sent to Jail. The property was put up for identification on 29-3-78 in the court of City Magistrate, Etawah and was correctly identified by Parmal Singh and Ram Shanker vide Ext. Ka 19. Accused . Pratap was put up for identification in Jail on 27-3-78 and was correctly identified by Surendra Kumar, Soney Lal, Sita Ram and Munshi Lal, vide Ext. Ka. 19. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and took a stand that they have been falsely implicated because of Ranjish. On their side, extracts of Jail Register (Exts. Kha 1 to Kha 4) and extracts of reports (Ext. Kha 5 to Kha 10) were produced. . Ext. Kha 11 is a Panchayat's judgment dated 25-8-76 and Ext. Ka. 19. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and took a stand that they have been falsely implicated because of Ranjish. On their side, extracts of Jail Register (Exts. Kha 1 to Kha 4) and extracts of reports (Ext. Kha 5 to Kha 10) were produced. . Ext. Kha 11 is a Panchayat's judgment dated 25-8-76 and Ext. Kha 12 is a certified copy of the complaint in the case Chheda Lal v. Maharam, dated 8-6-1976. 6. The prosecution examined Bhagwan Dass, Surendra Kumar, Soney Lal, Ram Shanker and Sita Ram as witnesses of fact. Parmal Singh was examined as a witness who identified the recovered Razai cover. Other witnesses were formal including the Magistrate, the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and police personnel. On the side of defence, Balwan Singh, who is scribe of the FIR, was examined as DW 1 and Shri Ram as DW 2. Sri S. P.Saxena, Assistant Jailor was examined as DW 3 and Constable Ram Sanehi Lal and Head Constable Raj Kumar were examined as DW 4 and 5 respectively, while Chhotey Lal, S. T. Malkhana Incharge was examined as DW 6. 7. The first point agitated before me, some what half heartedly, was regarding the factum of dacoity. Besides the sworn testimonies of the witnesses of whom I have made a mention above, there is other evidence on record also which proves the factum of dacoity. It appears that although the dacoits had tried to commit dacoity at the house of the complainant also, after they had committed the murder of the complainant's son, they perhaps did not take courage to loot the property there but they continued looting the property in the neighouring houses. Ravindra Nath son of complainant undoubtedly received gun shot injuries as a result of which he died. A lengthy cross-examination of the Doctor has been made but notes it is conceded that the death could have been a result of the firing at the time of the commission of this dacoity. There is also on record evidence to show that Surendra Kumar and Smt. Sita Shree, wife of Sri Sita Ram, also sustained injuries, the former as a result of the firing and the latter as a result of lathi blow. When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, he not only recovered blood-stained earth but also 8 pellets (Ext. There is also on record evidence to show that Surendra Kumar and Smt. Sita Shree, wife of Sri Sita Ram, also sustained injuries, the former as a result of the firing and the latter as a result of lathi blow. When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, he not only recovered blood-stained earth but also 8 pellets (Ext. 7) and empty catridges from the spot- He also recovered from the spot from two places ashes of burnt Karab. DW 1 Balwan stated during the examination-in-chief that a dacoity was perptrated on the date, time and place, as alleged by the prosecution. This is also the testimony of DW 2, Shri Ram. Therefore, it is now established beyond doubt that a dacoity did take place in which about 9 houses were looted by the dacoits, one person was murdered and two injured. 8. Again a half hearted argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence shows that the dacoity was committed in more than three houses and as such it was a case of 9 dacoities and not of one and a joint trial was not permissible under the law. The learned trial court has dealt with this matter in some detail. If it is found that the dacoities were committed in the course of the same transaction, the case will squarely fall within the four corners of section 220, CrPC which lays down that if in one series . of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. In the present case the entire evidence on record is to the effect that simultaneously dacoities were committed in all the. 9 houses and the firing was being resorted to from the roofs of different houses and it was indiscriminate. There is evidence to show that the dacoits were standing on the roofs of different houses. Even firing, which resulted in the death of Ravindra Nath, was made from the roof of Hetram. There is also evidence to the effect that during the course of the dacoity the dacoits were mentioning the casualties that were taking place and asking their companions to hurry up as the villagers had started to mount pressure. In all 10 to 12 firings were made. There is also evidence to the effect that during the course of the dacoity the dacoits were mentioning the casualties that were taking place and asking their companions to hurry up as the villagers had started to mount pressure. In all 10 to 12 firings were made. Looting in different houses was going on at the same time. From the testimony of Surendra Kumar (PW 3) it appears that he emerged from his house while the firing was continuing. He tried to run to safety and in that process he was injured. Similarly, Soney Lal's contention is that he saw two of the dacoits armed with guns, two with country made pistols and the remaining with spears, Kantas and while they looted the ornaments, currency notes and cash, they also looted silver Sutiya, weighing 10 Tolas. Similarly, his brother Shyam Lal's house was also looted and during the course of dacoity Ravindra Nath was killed and Surendra Kumar was injured. There is the testimony of Shyam Lal that the dacoits were threatening the villagers that if they came out of the houses, they will be shot dead. This threat was being given by those who were standing on different roofs. He shut his door but it was broken open by an axe. Simultaneously the houses of Ram Bux and Daya Ram were also looted. The dacoits were resorting to indiscriminate firing. According to Ram Shanker, the dacoits looted four Razais of Parmal Singh which had been given by him for the purpose of sewing and 20 pieces of cloths which were tied on a bicycle standing inside Ram Shanker Tailors house and it was in this dacoity that Ravindra Nath was murdered and Surendra Kumar and Sita Ram's wife received injuries. There is also evidence to show that when Sita Ram's wife Smt.Sita Shree tried to intervene, she was given a beating with Dandas and iron rod. It is thus clear from the entire evidence on record that the dacoity at different houses was committed at one and the same time in the single process within a small periphery during a period of one hour and the purpose and intention of the dacoits was to loot as many houses within as short a duration as possible. It is thus clear from the entire evidence on record that the dacoity at different houses was committed at one and the same time in the single process within a small periphery during a period of one hour and the purpose and intention of the dacoits was to loot as many houses within as short a duration as possible. The entire bunch of dacoits was busy for about one hour, some giving threats, some firing with their weapons and some others looting the property from different houses. Continuity of process between the various acts done by the dacoits is established. There is thus evidence to show that the criminal acts that were done were not isolated but were inspired by integrity of process and will be deemed to have been committed in one series so connected together as to form the same transaction. Therefore, the joint trial was justified and does not suffer from any defect. It is argued that there was delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place at about mid-night and the FIR was lodged at 8.30 A.M. the next morning at a distance of 3 miles. It should not be forgotten that the complainant's son was very seriously injured and there were two other injured persons. Arrangement for a bullock cart had to be made and with the mental make up of the villagers who were in a state of tension and fear on account of loot of a number of houses in the village and injuries to some, it is very natural that they should have started for the Thana with some delay. The FIR was scribed in the village and then taken to the Thana. The learned court below discarded the testimony of Balwan when he says that he scribed the report on 13-1-1978 at 10.00 at the instance of the Investigating Officer in the Thana itself. No such suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer and Balwan was telling a lie when he said so. He even went to the extent of saying that part of the FIR is not in his hand writing but during cross-examination he had to change that stand. It appears that he was siding with the defence in order to demolish the prosecution story. He even went to the extent of saying that part of the FIR is not in his hand writing but during cross-examination he had to change that stand. It appears that he was siding with the defence in order to demolish the prosecution story. From the entire evidence on record it is clear that no oral information was conveyed to the Thana regarding the commission of this dacoity and actually it was only the FIR in writing which was handed over and on the basis of which the case was registered. In my opinion, the circumstances of the case go to show that there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR. 9. There is also some argument regarding the absence of the light on the spot. It is said that neither the Karab was burnt nor there was any lantern nor the torches of the witnesses nor any lighted bulb connected with the Gobar Gas Plant at the house of one of the witnesses. Now so far as the lantern and torches of the witnesses are concerned, there is definite and direct evidence of the witnesses on record and there is no reason why it should be discarded. At two places Karab was burnt and even the defence witness had to admit that he put fire to a Karab load near his house but he says that he did so after the dacoity was over. This is a very silly statement. No body can expect that the firing will be put to Karab load unnecessarily without any purpose after the dacoits had receded. It only shows that Karab was only put to fire when the dacoity was in progress. So far as the other Karab load is concerned, there is definite evidence to show that it was during the course of the dacoity that the fire was put to it. As regards the bulb, it is not disputed that a Gobar Gas Plant is fixed at the house of Shriram. Shriram admits the fact and says that after 8.00 p. m. they used to put light off. There appears to be no justification for the same. When the bulb has been fixed, the purpose was to keep it lighted during the night and, therefore, when the witnesses say that this bulb was lighted even when this occurrence took place, they have to be believed. 10. There appears to be no justification for the same. When the bulb has been fixed, the purpose was to keep it lighted during the night and, therefore, when the witnesses say that this bulb was lighted even when this occurrence took place, they have to be believed. 10. The most vehement argument is that the appellants are all known persons and there is no evidence to show that they took any precaution to conceal their identity and hence it has to be held that they did not take part in this occurrence. This argument is in respect of Brijendra Singh, Shriram, Ram Autar and Radhey Shyam. So far as Pratap is concerned, he has not been named in the FIR. The ease against him depends upon the identification evidence and it is no body's case that he was known from before, although the defence has tried to connect him also with other accused persons and one Chheda Lal. It is true that generally we do not expect known persons from the neighbourhood to go and commit dacoity at the houses of known persons without trying to conceal their faces, in an open manner but this general rule of conduct is not universally applicable in each and every case. There may be cases in which known persons do commit heinous offences without concealing their identity. The dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Shanker Singh v. State of. U. P., AIR 1956 SC 441 does not lay down a general principle that known persons would not commit dacoity without taking precaution to conceal their identity. If this contention of the defence is up-held, then any neighbour can easily commit dacoity and escape on the ground that he did not conceal his identity before committing the dacoity. Every case will have to depend upon its own facts and circumstances. This was the view taken in the case of Pramod Chand v. State, AIR 1969 Tripura 42. There is yet another case of Chandra Bhan v. State, 1981 CrLJ 196 in which the following observation is of relevance :- "But out of enmity names of two known persons were introduced, who would ordinarily not go to commit dacoity without taking care of concealing their faces. There is yet another case of Chandra Bhan v. State, 1981 CrLJ 196 in which the following observation is of relevance :- "But out of enmity names of two known persons were introduced, who would ordinarily not go to commit dacoity without taking care of concealing their faces. Even in that case there is no such hard and fast rule that known persons would not go to commit dacoity without taking care of concealing their faces. It depends upon the temperament of a person. There can be hardened. criminals. When a known person is desperate and very much inimical he can go to commit dacoity without taking the usual precaution of covering the face. It was so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Siyaram v. State of Bihar, 1973 CrLJ 155 ." 11. In Siya Ram's case the High Court had held that the witnesses were both interested and partisan and still after applying the standard of caution and care, after scrutiny the High Court found the evidence of the witnesses to be reliable and convicted the appellant. The Supreme Court observed :- "That being the position, however improbable it might appear at first sight for the appellant to have participated in the incident, it is difficult to get over the evidence of his having been identified and named by Sitaram and the other witnesses almost immediately after the incident. The only explanation about the highly desperate act on the part of the appellant is his antipathy towards Sitaram getting the better of him, which made him abandon any caution which he would have otherwise taken while participating in such an incident." 12. Even the reasons for known persons taking part in a dacoity without concealing their identity as mentioned in the case of Chandra Bhan (Supra) are not exhaustive and complete. There may be other reasons in addition to the reason of desperate enmity e.g. the belief in the mind of the culprits that they might not be known to the witnesses, and similar other reasons. So far as the mind of a culprit is corcerned, its working cannot be a subject of even guess by others why a certain man commits dacoity with open face at a place where there is likelihood of his having been known, is a matter that cannot be explained by mere out-siders. So far as the mind of a culprit is corcerned, its working cannot be a subject of even guess by others why a certain man commits dacoity with open face at a place where there is likelihood of his having been known, is a matter that cannot be explained by mere out-siders. The ultimate result of this discussion is that merely because known persons commit dacoity without taking precuation, it cannot be held as a matter of rule that they could not have committed that dacoity. The entire evidence will have to be looked into with great care and caution if it is established on the evidence on record that those who took part in the dacoity under such circumstances were not only known but also inimically disposed against the complainant and other witnesses and that the witnesses were partisan. It is the light of this legal position that lead us now to consider the evidence of the witnesses against the named accuse persons. The known accused persons who have been named in the FIR are Brijendra Singh, Ram Autar, Radhey Shyam and Shri Ram. There is some documentary evidence on record, vide Ext. kha 5 to kha 10, proved by Constable, Raj Kumar DW 5 to show that between 4-9-75 and October, 1977 some FIRs were lodged by Gaya Prasad, Brijendra Singh, Chhedi Lal, mostly under Section 504 and 506, IPC against Bhagwan Das and his son Ram Das. The scribes of those FlRs have not been produced. Bhagwan Das denies the i act of occurrences mentioned in those FIRs. In one particular case in which Brijendra Singh named Ishwar Chand, one of the sons of Bhagwan Das, as an accused, it is established that Ishwar Chand was on Army duty on 15-6-1977 and hence the report was baseless. Chhedi Lal, it appears, in the year 1974 had started proceedings under Section 435 IPC against Bhagwan Das and this case ended in acquittal. Ext. ka 2 which is the judgment of the Panchayat is a document of the year 1976 and it shows that Ram Das had filed a suit against Chhedi Lal and it was disposed of on Chhedi Lal's special oath. Therefore, we may say that there was some enmity between Chhedi Lal, Brijendra Singh and Gaya Prasad on one hand and Bhagwan Das and his family members on the other. Therefore, we may say that there was some enmity between Chhedi Lal, Brijendra Singh and Gaya Prasad on one hand and Bhagwan Das and his family members on the other. But so far as the prosecution witnesses other than Bhagwan Das and his sons are concerned, namely Surendra Kumar, Soney Lal, Ram Shanker and Sitaram, there is no allegation much less any proof of any enmity with any of accused or even wiih Chhedi Lal. There is also no allegation any where that they belong to the party of Bhagwan Das and so should be presumed inimically disposed against Chhedi Lal and his relatives. It may be mentioned here that out of nominated accused, Radhey Shyam belongs to village Muren which lies within the police station Ajitmal. Ram Autar belongs to village Sukhanpur within the police station Nagalpur, district Kanpur. Brijendra Singh belongs to village Narayanpur which lies within the police station Auraiya but is far away from the village of the complainant and Shriram belongs to Turkipur which is within the police station Phaphund. All the accused including Pratap have claimed some relationship with Chhedi Lal. Pratap says that he is Chhedi Lai's father-in-law. The absurdity of this statement has been pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge when he says that a young man like Pratap can hardly be the father-in-law of Chhedi Lal. The details of relationship are not given. Both Ram Autar and Brijendra Singh claimed to be the Bahnois of Chhedi Lal and they are not brothers inter se. Therefore, this relationship is doubtful. In any view of the matter, it is clear that these persons were not so well known to the witnesses of this case as relatives of Chhedi Lal. In all, there were 10 to 12 dacoits who committed the dacoity on that fateful night. Nomination has been made of only four. It means, therefore, that 8 others were not known to the witnesses from before. Under these circumstances when the witnesses specifically mentioned the presence of these four named persons amongst the culprits and testimonies are corroborative of each other and further when it is established beyond doubt that at least Surendra Kumar, Soney Lal, Ram Shanker and Sitaram had no enmity with Chhedi Lal or with these accused persons nor any relationship with Bhagwan Das and their family members, there is no reason why their testimonies should be discarded. 13. 13. We then come to the case against Pratap. He is not named in the FIR and it has not been elicited from any of the witnesses that he was known to them from before. He might be claiming to be a relative of Chhedi Lal but that fact is not established. Even otherwise also he was arrested on 2-4-78 at 8.00 p. m. although he was not mentioned in the FIR by name and the Investigating Officer recovered a Razai cover Ext. 1 from his possession vide memo Ext. ka 28. He was kept under cover and then sent to Jail the next day again under cover. He was put up for identification in Jail on 27-3-78 where he was correctly identified by Surendra Kumar PW 2, Soney Lal PW 6. Sita Ram PW 9 and Munshi Lal. The memo is Ext. ka 18. The property recovered from him was put up for identification on 28-3-78 by the City Magistrate, Etawah in his court at 3.20 p. m. and Ram Shanker PW 8 and Parmai Singh PW 7, the owner, correctly identified the Razai cover Ext. 1 vide memo Ext. ka 19. Mr. S. C. Mathur, City Magistrate has been examined as PW 12. There is the testimony of Ram Shanker that Parmal Singh had given him four Razai covers for being stitched and he had also 20 other cloth pieces tied to the carrier of his bicycle which were all looted and taken away by the dacoits. Parmai Singh has been examined as PW 7 and he corroborates that statement regarding the Razai cover and identifies Ext. 1. There is thus direct and definite evidence not only of recovery from and the arrest of Pratap but also of his participation in this dacoity. I am, therefore, of the view that Brijendra Sifigh, Ram Autar, Pratap, Radhey Shyam and Shriram were guilty of the offence under Section 396, IPC. They were rightly convicted and the sentence of 10 years' R. I. awarded to each one of them cannot be said to be harsh. 14. In the result, the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. The convictions of the accused-appellants and the sentences awarded to them are up-held and confirmed. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith and be taken into custody to serve out their sentences. Appeal dismissed.