JUDGMENT M.S. Deshpande, J.-The eight appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1988 have been convicted under sections 302, 307 and 342 read with section 149' and sections 396 and .397 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to death for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 and under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, and to suffer imprisonment for life for the offences under section 307 read with section 149 and under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 342 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. Confirmation Case No.1 of 1988 arises out of the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for confirming the sentence of death, under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The gruesome incident, which resulted in the death of five persons and injuries to three others, occurred in the evening of July 3, 1984, near Kilo Meter No.9 on Chandrapur Ballarshah Road which is a part of State Highway No. 84. Close to the road at Kilo Meter No.9, construction of two buildings of a Seed Centre was in progress' where watchmen Doma Hemne and deceased Tanba Gedam were employed to guard the material on the construction site. At about 7.30 p.m. while Doma and Tanba were near the site they heard some persons approaching and one of them picked up a bamboo-stick. Four persons surrounded Doma and two others started assaulting Tanba with bricks and Tanba fell in the foundation pit. Doma was also beaten. The miscreants then tied Doma and Tanba by removing the dhoti which Tanba was wearing, dragged them both over a distance of 20 feet and beat them with rafters, stones and bricks and threw them into a ditch about 50 feet away from the road. The assailants, on hearing the sound of an approaching two-wheeler, went upto the road and assaulted the rider of the two-wheeler, later identified to be Raman-Shanaishchandra. Mahendra Singh and Baldeo Singh, who were proceeding in the direction of Chandrapur sighted the 8 to 10 persons armed with rafters and sticks on the road, some of whom stopped their secooter and one of them hit Mahendra Singh on his hand. Mahendra Singh and Baldeo Singh, who were proceeding in the direction of Chandrapur sighted the 8 to 10 persons armed with rafters and sticks on the road, some of whom stopped their secooter and one of them hit Mahendra Singh on his hand. Mahendra Singh had at that time a V.I.P. bag containing Rs. 7040/- and some envelopes. Their attempt to snatch the sticks of the assailants was foiled, they were over-powered and beaten mercilessly and robbed of their belongings. Baldeo Singh died on the spot and his body and the scooter were thrown by the side of the road. Mahendra Singh lost consciousness, was removed later to a hospital at Nagpur and regained consciousness after four days. Prakash Vehadkar, who was also passing by the road on his cycle, was stopped beaten and killed. When Surendra Chopra and Raju Deshmukh approaching be spot on the scooter driven by Raju Deshmukh, they were belaboured by the miscreants. Raju Desmukh fell off his scooter and was trapped under it. The miscreants beat Surendra but left him on hearing the sound of another scooter but not before relieving him of his gold-ring, wrist-watch and Rs. 250/-. Surendra escaped, ran over some distance and begged one Mumtaz Ahmed, who was passing by the road on his scooter, for a lift. Mumtaz Ahmed took Surender to the house of the latter's brother at Ballarsha. After giving medical assistance to Surender, his brother and others: went in search of Raju Deshmukh, but as they could not locate Raju and his scooter, they took the help of P.S.I.- Chandrapur who accompanied them to the spot. There was no trace of the victims on the spot. On proceeding further, they learnt about the killing of 4 or 5 persons and saw Raju Deshmuk's body and his scooter lying by the side of the road close to another dead-body which was later identified to be that of Tanba Gedam. 3. P.S.I.-Gadekar of the Traffic Branch at Chandrapur was proceeding by the road at 22.10 hrs., on July 3, 1984, when he learnt about the dead-bodies lying by the side of the road. He along with Head Constable Ramdas went there and saw four bodies lying by the two sides of the road. He left Head Constable Ramdas on the spot and apprised P.I.-Thakur of the Chandra pur Police Station of what he had seen. He along with Head Constable Ramdas went there and saw four bodies lying by the two sides of the road. He left Head Constable Ramdas on the spot and apprised P.I.-Thakur of the Chandra pur Police Station of what he had seen. P.I-Thakur accompanied P.S.I.-Gadekar to the scene of occurrence and found three dead-bodies, and an injured person asking for water, and two more dead-bodies and the injured Mahendra Singh. The two injured persons were sent to the General Hospital, Chandrapur, in a trekker belonging to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. P.S.I-Bante of Chandrapur City Police Station went to the General Hospital and recorded Doma's statement. On the basis of this First Information report, P.S.I. Nimgade, who was in-charge of the Police Station dunng the night, registered the offence. 4. P.I.-Thakur drew up panchanama of the scene of the incident from 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. 08 July 4, 1984. He also prepared inquest reports in respect of the dead-bodies. Prakash Vyahadkar's name could be gathered from a tobacco-box which was lying near him and the cycle which bore his name. Bloodstained clothes of the injured persons were sized under separate panchanamas, Pancho, namas were drawn separately of the articles seized from the different places in the neighbour-hood in the morning of July 4, 1984 itself. 5. Later on that day, the dead-bodies of Raman Hariprasad Shanaishchandra, Raju Mahadeorao Deshmukh, Prakash Udhao Vyahadkar, Baldeo Singh and Tanba Gedam, were sent for post-mortem examination at General Hospital, Chandrapur, where Dr. Murkey performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies from 11.45 a.m. to 4 50 p.m. It would be useful to refer to the injuries noticed in some detail in order to consider the veracity of the oral evidence as well as to determine the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed. Murkey performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies from 11.45 a.m. to 4 50 p.m. It would be useful to refer to the injuries noticed in some detail in order to consider the veracity of the oral evidence as well as to determine the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed. The external injuries found on Raman's dead body were: (1) Lacerated wound on the scalp occipital region extending from one ear lobule to other, 10" x 1" skull-deep; (2) Lacerated wound on left parietal region, capital 1” shaped, each limb of 2" length x 3/4" width skull deep; (3) Right ear lobule cut 1" through and through from upper aspect; (4) Contusion on both shoulders ; (5) Abrasion on the left upper arm mid-lateral aspect horizontally 3" x 1/4"; (6) Lacerated wound on the chin oblique 11/2" x 1/4 x 1/4; (7) Multiple linear vertical abrasions on the chest left side below nipple 2 umbilicus 12" x 6"; (8) Lacerated wound on the left index finger and ring finger of size 1" x 1" muscle deep; (9) Contusion on the back of right scapula defused 6" x 6" ; (10) Linear contusion on the left side of the back vertical extensive. On internal examination, the doctor found as under:- Head-Haemotomo on the left parietal and occipital region. Skull-Occipital bone crushed. Brain-Collection of clotted blood all over the brain. Huge haemotoma with laceration of the brain in parietal and occipital regions present. Meninges formed in the above regions, According to Dr. Murkey, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and Raman died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injuries. On the dead-body of Raju, the doctor found the following external injuries :- (1) Lacerated wound on the scalp central aspect, horizontally oblique 5" x 2'" skull deep, brain matter visible through the wound; (2) Lacerated wound posterior to injury No.1, size 11/2" x 1" skull deep, irregular; (3) Contusion on the left tip of shoulder 2" x 2"; (4) Abrasion on the left elbow posterior aspect 4" x 2'; (5) Abrasion on the left knee joint anteriorly 3" x 2" ; (6) Multiple abrasions over the dorsorn of both hands; (7) Multiple abrasions over the right side of abdomen and right side of the chest. The doctor found the injuries under scalp as follows ;- (1) Haematoma under the scalp central aspect, skull crushed into pieces in central and parietal regions, brain matter protruding out; (2) Brain matter crushed in central and parietal regions, haematoma extensive meninges formed in the above regions. In the opinion of Dr. Murkey, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death of Raju was' due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of head injuries noted above. On Prakash's dead-body following external injuries were noticed :- (1) Lacerated wound 2" x 1", skull deep on the left parietal region, transverse posterior aspect; (2) Lacerated wound 3" x 1" bone deep vertical right parietal region posterior aspect; (3) Lacerated wound 4" x 1'" bone deep vertical just lateral to injury No. (2) ; (4) Lacerated wound 41/2" x 1" bone deep, vertical i" lateral to injury No.3 right parietal region; (5) Lacerated wound 31/2 x 3/4" bone deep oblique and vertical on occipital region; (6) Lacerated wound 4" x 1" bone deep half inch medial to the injury No. 5, vertical on occipital region; (7) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" muscle deep half inch on the left side of left eye; (8) Small abrasion on left leg and left knee and dorsom of left foot; (9) Extensive contusion over both scapulas; (10) Contusion over the dorsom of right hand dibuse. The following injmies were noticed on internal examination; (1) Big haematoma over the both parietal region and occipital region; (2) Crushed fracture of the skull over both parietal and occipital regions; (3) Huge haematoma over the both parietal region and occipital region present. Underlying brain matter crushed. Maninges formed in above regions. According to Dr. Muckey, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death was due to shock and haemorrbage, as a result of bead injuries noted above. Underlying brain matter crushed. Maninges formed in above regions. According to Dr. Muckey, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death was due to shock and haemorrbage, as a result of bead injuries noted above. The external injuries noticed on the Person of the punjabi Sikh, who was later identified as Baldeo Singh, were as follows: (1) Lacerated wound in the centre of forehead 11/2" x 1/2" bone deep, trans" verse; (2) Lacerated wound oblique and vertical 2" x 1/4" bone deep half inch posteriorly and right laterally placed from injury No. 1; (3) Lacerated wound 5" x i" bone deep oblique extending from 2" from injury No. 1 upto right parietal region; (4) Lacerated wound in the centre of the head transverse 3" x 1/2" bone deep; (5) Lacerated wound U shaped limbs of the U facing anteriorly, 41/2" x 1/2" bone deep. 11/2" posteriorly to injury No.4. (6) I Abrasion oblique 21/2" x 2" on the right side of forehead upper part; (7) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2. on the forehead, 2 inches posteriorly from injury No.6. (8) Abrasion on the right side of the nostril ½ x 1/2. (9) Tear of the upper Jip in the middle part It" extending through and through; (10) Four central incisons are loose. Bleeding from the gum present in the same area; (11) Huge swelling (contusion) extending from the middle of left forearm upto tips of fingers; (12) Lacerated wound between the webs of middle and ring finger. 11/2" x 1/2. muscle deep; (13) Lacerated wound anteriorly with fracture, dislocation of the skull inter phalengial joint of index of right hand; (14) Dislocation of the matacorpo phalen" gial joint of little finger of right hand; (15) Big contusion with haemotoma at the back upper part of right hand; On internal examination, the following injuries were noticed;- Head.-Injuries under the scalp. Haemotom a under the scalp in frontal and parietal regions right present. Skull- (i) Fracture of the frontal bone in the centre 3" transverse; (ii) Fracture of the right parietal bone 31/2- oblique. 21- from the frontal bone right side; (iii) Fracture of anterior middle cranial fossa, present. Brain -Big haemotoma over the frontal and parietal region right side present. Underlying brain lacerated. Meninges formed in above region. In the opinion of Dr. 21- from the frontal bone right side; (iii) Fracture of anterior middle cranial fossa, present. Brain -Big haemotoma over the frontal and parietal region right side present. Underlying brain lacerated. Meninges formed in above region. In the opinion of Dr. Murkey, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death was due shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injuries. Lastly, Dr. Muckey performed the postmortem examination on the dead-body of Tanba Gedam and noticed the following external injuries: (1) Lacerated wound on the left parietal region anterio posteriorly of scalp 2" x 1/2" skull deep; (2) Lacerated wound on right parietal region 1" x 1" bone deep; (3) Abrasion on right arm anteriorly; (4) Multiple abrasions over the back present; (5) Abrasion multiple on the both knee joints anteriorly; , (6) Abrasion cum contusion on the chest left side below nipple 5" x 5" area. The doctor noticed the following injuries under the scalp; (1) Extensive haemotoma on the scalp in parietal and occipital regions, present; Skull.-Semi-circular fracture extending 2" from right ear passing through right temporal occipital upto left temporal region 21/2" above left ear. Brain.- Big haemotoma over the right temporal parietal region. Underlying brain matter lacerated, meninges fromed in above regions; On internal examination, the doctor also noticed fracture of the ribs 2nd, 3rd and 4th on each side in mid clavicular region and fracture of sternum in upper 3rd region. The cause of death, according to the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries mentioned which, in the opinion of the doctor, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. On July 4, 1984, injured Mahendrasingh pyarasirgh Mangat was examined by Dr. Lonare at 0.15 hrs. in Chandrapur Hospital, and he noticed a swelling on his right forearm lower part of which fracture was suspected; swelling of the left hand; five librated wounds on the forehead and the frontal, occipital and right parietal regions. After X-ray was taken, Dr. Dudiwar, on examining the X-ray plates, found fracture of the right ulna. Dr. Lonare then examined injured Doma Ramchandra Hemane and found two lacerations on the right occipital region and one laceration on the cent 31 occipital region with swelling of right hand and multiple abrasions all over the body, but no fractures were detected on X-ray examination. Dr. Dudiwar, on examining the X-ray plates, found fracture of the right ulna. Dr. Lonare then examined injured Doma Ramchandra Hemane and found two lacerations on the right occipital region and one laceration on the cent 31 occipital region with swelling of right hand and multiple abrasions all over the body, but no fractures were detected on X-ray examination. Dr. L mare then examined Surendra Chhaguram Chopra, another injured, and found swellings on both the hand, lower part of the right forearm, left knee, right postouricular of scalp; lacerations on the left and right forehead, contusion on the right lower thorsic region; tenderness on the left shoulder leading to difficulty in movement Of left shoulder; and abrasion, on the right shoulder. No fracture, however, was noticed. According to Dr. Lonare, if the head injuries found on these three persons were to have beep a little deeper, they would have caused death of those persons, skull being the vital part of the body. 7. On I July 5, 1984, the blood-stained clothes which were found on the dead bodies, were seized under separate panchanamas. 8. No significant progress with regard to the identity and the arrest of the culprits could be made until Ramcharan (original accused No.1) was sighted by Manoher Thikare, a resident of Rajoli, a village on Chandrapur Gondia Railway-line, in an effort to steal his cycle and was caught by Manoher and his brother Sudhakar and taken to the Police Patil Tulshiram Thikare. Ramcharan was taken to the Police Station at Mul on July 7, 1984 and was arrested at 4.20 p.m., as he appeared to be concerned with the offence of dacoity. A telegraphic message was given to Chandrapur City Police Station at 2.00 a.m. As a sequel to the information received from him, accused Nos. 2 to 9 were arrested at 6.00 a.m., and Murari Dashrath was arrested at 11.00 a.m., on that day. 9. In the course of investigation that followed, several blood-stained articles and clothes as well as money came to be seized either in searches conducted or in consequence of the information i furnished by the accused persons. Murari died on July 10, 1984 while in police custody. On July 19, 1984, Ram charan's confession was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Bhola. Murari died on July 10, 1984 while in police custody. On July 19, 1984, Ram charan's confession was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shri Bhola. Articles seized were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination and his report obtained and, ultimately, a charge-sheet came to be lodged against Ramcharan and the present appellants, on September 9, 1984. 10. The accused Nos. 1 to 9 pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. After 31 witnesses for the prosecution, including the two eye-witnesses, Doma and Surendra Chopra, P.W. 5 and P.W. 31 respectively, were examined, and learned Additional Sessions Judge granted pardon to accused No. 1-Ramcharan, and Ramcharan was examined from 4.5.1987 as a witness in the case. 11. The defence of the appellants was of denial. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 filed a common written statement, while accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 filed their separate written statements. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 Rampal and Basawan contended that they were working as usual with the Colliery at the time of the incident and they had been falsely implicated. 12. The iearned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and was of the view that accused No. 1, who had turned approver, was worthy of credit and that his evidence, even otherwise, was corroborated by the articles seized during the searches of the houses of the accused persons and recovery of articles in consequence of the information furnished by them. He was of the view that all the accused Nos. 2 to 9, the present appellants, were guilty and this was one of those cases where capital punishment was necessary and. he, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 13. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and particularly that of the approver-Ramcharan should not have been accepted, because it was unnatural, artificial and it purported to sho}\' that he was not a participant in the crime. It was also urged that what was treated as corroborative evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not really evidence which could have gone to corroborate the approver and there was no such corroboration in respec~ of the material particulars as could have enabled the learned Additional Sessions Judge to convict the appellants. 14. It was also urged that what was treated as corroborative evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not really evidence which could have gone to corroborate the approver and there was no such corroboration in respec~ of the material particulars as could have enabled the learned Additional Sessions Judge to convict the appellants. 14. Before considering the evidence in detail, we may point out that the charge as originally framed by the Additional Sessions Judge on November 20, 1985 was against accused Nos. 1 to 9 under sections 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code, mentioning therein that while committing dacoity, they -had committed the murders of Raju Deshmukh, Baldeo Singh Parmar, Prakash Vyahadkar, Raman Shanaishchandra and Chowkidar Tanba Gedam and that at that time the' accused were armed with deadly weapons, and had caused grievous hurts to Doma Ramchandra Remne, Surendra Chopra and Mahendrasingh Mangat. On March 11, 1987, additionill charges came to, be framed in respect of the incident in which Tanba and Doma were concerned, which had occurred close to the construction site, and they were under sections 302, 307 and 342 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, that as members of an unlawful assembly which had as its common object of committing the murders and causing grievous hurts to Tanba Gedam and Doma Ramchandra Remne. Though the charges 'have been framed separately, particularly charges Nos. 3 to 7, in respect of the earlier incident which occurred near the construction site, it is apparent that according to the case of the prosecutIon the whole incident was one continuous transaction in which several offences were committed. 15. We have already referred, while stating the facts of the prosecution case, to the medical evidence bearing upon the injuries found on the five deceased persons and three :persons who were injured but fortunately survived. The medical evidence, when considered in the light of the evidence of the three injured persons who were examined in Court, leaves no doubt that the five persons met with a homicidal death and this position was not questioned before us. It was also not questioned before us that the three persons Doma, Surendra and Mahendrasingh were injured in that incident. It was also not questioned before us that the three persons Doma, Surendra and Mahendrasingh were injured in that incident. Having regard to the manner in which these three persons came to be assaulted and injuries which were found on their persons and the evidence which shows the nature of the weapons, namely, rafters and sticks which were used and the particular parts of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted, they leave no doubt that the injuries were inflicted with such intention and knowledge that if their deaths also were caused, the assailants would have been guilty of murder. The learned Counsel for the appellants, without questioning this position, was at pains to point out that the appellants were not at all concerned with the incident and that they had been falsely implicated. 16. We will first refer to the evidence of the three injured persons who were eye-witnesses to the incident which occurred on July 3, 1984. There was no identification parade held either in respect of the assailants or the articles which came to be seized and it, therefore, becomes necessary to consider the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the evidence regarding the identity of the articles which were said to be stolen, with greater care. 17. Doma (P. W. 5) relates the first part of the incident which occurred at about 7.30 pm., on July, 3, 1984. According to him, he and Tanba Gendam were employed as watchmen, and while they were sitting near the construction site, they heard some persons approaching and on turning back they saw six persons, out of whom four surrounded Doma and two others went near Tanba Gendam. After beating them both, the assailants dragged them over some distance, undid Tanba's dhoti and with it tied both of them, and they threw them in a pit at a distance of 50 feet from the main road. Though Doma pointed to the accused Nos. 2 to 7-Rampal, Fu1chand, Babulal, Sheoprasad, Basawan, Shamlal and Pratap as the six person who had come to the place and had taken part in 'the beating, it is apparent that the identification came to be made about three years after the incident. There was obviously no light at that time. Though Doma pointed to the accused Nos. 2 to 7-Rampal, Fu1chand, Babulal, Sheoprasad, Basawan, Shamlal and Pratap as the six person who had come to the place and had taken part in 'the beating, it is apparent that the identification came to be made about three years after the incident. There was obviously no light at that time. Though Ramcharan (P.W. 49) stated that there was a talk that the day was of Amavasya, it is apparent from Rajendrekar's Maharashtra Panchang that it was the 5th day of the bright fortnight and the time of sunset was 7.03 O'clock. Doma stated that he recognised the six persons whom he pointed out in Court because he had seen their faces with the help of the head-lights of the trucks which were passing by the road, but he admitted that he had not recognised the faces of these persons earlier because of darkness. He had not referred to having seen the six persons in the light of the head-lights of the trucks, in his statement before the police and this obviously was a material omission. He admitted that if he had not seen these persons in the head-lights of the trucks, he would not have been in a position to identify the culprits. It is also apparent from his evidence that the faces of the assailants were covered. 18. Surendra Chopra (P.W. 31) was passing by the road on a scooter which was driven by Raju Deshmukh, when some persons, who were standing by the side of the road armed with sticks, started beating them and the assailants at that time had masks on their faces. According to him, the assailants belonged to the age group of 25 to 30 years and be had reached the place around 7.30 p.m. He saw about 8 to 10 persons, about ten to fifteen days after the incident, in the police lock up, but he claimed to have identified only one person at that time, and though he was asked the name of that person, he could not recollect his name at the time of the evidence. From the account which Surendra gives, it is apparent that Raju Deshmukh received the first stick blow on his head and he lost control of the scooter. From the account which Surendra gives, it is apparent that Raju Deshmukh received the first stick blow on his head and he lost control of the scooter. He fell off the scooter on the body of Raju, and when he saw the masked person chasing him, he started running and fell down. He was assaulted with sticks, but as the assailants saw certain other persons coming on another scooter, they let him go and started chasing the others, and from the screams and the voices, he gathered that the two persons, who were riding other scooter, were Punjabis. Another person came on a cycle at that time and he was also assaulted. Surendra was wearing a wrist watch of Ricoh Company and a gold ring worth about Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- and had currency notes, one of the denomination of Rs. 100/- and three of the denomination of Rs. 50/-, and he lost all this money. According to him, the fight between the Punjabis and the assailants took about ten minutes. From the injuries sustained by Surendra Chopra, which we have mentioned in detail, and his account, there cannot be any doubt that the eight to ten persons, whom he had seen by the side of the road, had started the assault for committing theft and that there was a dacoity. Surendra Chopra could not identify any of the assailants. He claimed to have met the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Chandrapur later and wanted to see the persons and he was taken by one of the officers and shown the arrested persons. Though he claimed to have identified one of them to be from the assailants, he could not identify anyone in Court and his evidence is of no use for establishing the identity of the assailants. 19. Mahendrasingh (P.W. 33) had set out with one Baldeosingh on a scooter with Rs. 7040/- which he had collected at Rajura and reached the place of the incident after the sun-set. According to him, there was a bundle of cash of Rs. 5000/- containing currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- and a bundle of Rs. 2000/- containing the notes of the denomination ofRs. 100/- and on that bundle figure 207' was written in pencil on the white portion of a currency note. According to him, there was a bundle of cash of Rs. 5000/- containing currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- and a bundle of Rs. 2000/- containing the notes of the denomination ofRs. 100/- and on that bundle figure 207' was written in pencil on the white portion of a currency note. This money, along with certain envelopes bearing the name of the Company with which he served, had been kept in a VIP bag (Art. 55). When the assailants came in front of the scooter, Mahendrasingh told Baldeosingh that there was some danger, and by that time the assault had already begun. Though they both tried to snacth the sticks of the appellants, they did not succeed and Mahendrasingh was beaten on his head and he became unconscious to regain consciousness only four days later in a hospital at Nagpur. Mahendrasingh identified the accused No.7 Shamial in Court as one of the assailants, but from his account, it is clear that all the assailants were wearing masks. Though he stated that besides accused No.7 Shamlal, there may be some other persons also standing who were not wearing masks, he could not say who were the other persons without masks. There was a scuffle between him and the assailants for about five to seven minutes, but since even according to him it was dark at that time, which was 7.30 p.m. to 800 pm., it is difficult to believe that he could have identified any of the assailants. The evidence of the three eye-witnesses, therefore, though it positively establishes the fact that a dacoity was committed in which five persons came to be killed and three injured, that evidence does not help to identify the culprits and the evidence of none of these witnesses can be used for the purpose~ of establishing the identity of the accused persons as assailants. 20. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of these three witnesses with regard to the identity of the persons involved in the incident, but as we have pointed out, it is impossible to agree with the appreciation of the evidence of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this point, in view of the total darkness at the hour when the incident occurred and the impossibility of the culprits being identified on account of the masks which they were wearing. 21. 21. We will now refer to the evidence of the witnesses who reached the scene of occurrence on or around the time when the assault on the victims was in progress. P. W. 32 Mumtaz Ahmed was returning from Chandrapur to Ballarshah at about 8.00 p.m. when he met Surendra Chopra and the latter requested him to drop him at the house of his brother at Ballarshah. He gave a lift to Surendra after hearing about the incident from Surendra, and on reaching Ballarshah apprised Surendra's brother of what had happened. On learning that Raju Deshmukh was lying on the spot, they took the jeep of one Mr. Singh and went towards Chandrapur in search of Deshmukh. As they could not see Deshmukh or his scooter, they went to Babupeth Police Chowki and with the help of the Sub-Inspector who was present there, they reached the spot, on being told by certain persons that 4 or 5 persons were killed. On the left side of the road facing Ballarsbah near a ditch, they saw a scooter and by its side the dead body of Raju Deshmukh and one Chowkidar who lay beside him. That Chowkidar was naked and his legs and hands were tied. Surendra Chopra's head was bleeding at that time. The evidence of Mumtaz Ahmed corroborates the account given by Surendra Chopra. P.S.T. Gadekar, who belonged to the Traffic Branch, was passing by the road on combing duty in pursuit of some trucks which were speeding towards Ballarshah, when he learnt from the Conductor of a truck on the road that there were some dead bodies lying by the side of the road. He saw four dead-bodies at that place and so he posted Head Constable Ramdas there and went to the City Police Station at Chandrapur. P.I. Thakur of Chandrapur City Police Station, on being apprised of the incident at about 10.40 p.m., visited the spot. 22. The criticism of the learned Counsel for the appellants in respect of the evidence of these two witnesses was that even on being informed of the incident, none from Babupeth Police Chowki, nor P.I. Thakur, took any steps for registering the offence. 22. The criticism of the learned Counsel for the appellants in respect of the evidence of these two witnesses was that even on being informed of the incident, none from Babupeth Police Chowki, nor P.I. Thakur, took any steps for registering the offence. It is apparent that P.S.I. Gadekar (P.W. 22) had no other information except that dead bodies lay at the place and, obviously, it could not be vouched that at that time information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence had been received. From the evidence of P.I. Thakur (P. W. 56) it is clear that as soon as he received information, he went to the spot with P.S.I. Gadekar and near the Seed Centre (Kosa Utapadan Kendra), he found three dead bodies and one person seriously injured who was asking for water, and on the other side of the road were two bodies and one Sardarji who was seriously injured. He arranged to send the two injured persons in a trekker belonging to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, to the General Hospital at Chandrapur along with P.S.I. Gadekar. The evidence of Ashok Gopal Umrao (PW. 14) shows that on learning from one Namdeo Gendam that Raju Deshmukh, who had taken the vehicle of Shri Khadse, had been killed, he went to the place along with Khadse and took the injured persons in his trekker to the General Hospital, Chandrapur. His evidence would show that near the naked body, which was that of Tanba Gendam, was a person who was alive and was moaning and his hands and legs had been tied. It is apparent that until P.I. Thakur reached the place, there was no credible information about the commission of a cognizable offence. 23. The first information report evidently was given by Doma to P.S.I. Baute who had been asked to record his statement, and this statement was treated as the first information report (Ex. 201). The first information report bears out Doma's version regarding the incident. Evidently, the identity of none of the assailants could be gathered at the time the first information report was filed by Doma. 201). The first information report bears out Doma's version regarding the incident. Evidently, the identity of none of the assailants could be gathered at the time the first information report was filed by Doma. According to Shri Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, it was unusual that P.S.I. Gadekar should not have made report, and though such a serious incident had occurred by the side of a Stare Highway at about 7.30 p.m., the police machinery should not have been spurred to action, though Babupeth Police Chowki had already been alerted. As we have already pointed out, though a ghastly incident did take place, the only persons, who could have informed the police about the incident, were the three injured persons and out of them Doma was the only person who could have spoken to the police and it was his report which was treated as the first information report. We see nothing in the evidence to show that anybody was interested in concealing the identity of the persons involved or in roping in persons who were not concerned in the incident as the assailants and that explains the omission to refer to the names of the assailants or their descriptions in the first information report filed by Doma. Nothing burns upon the delay of a few hours in filing the first information report, in these circumstances. 24. We have already pointed out that it was not until Ramcharan, the approver, came to be sighted at Rajoli that any further steps were taken, besides drawing of the usual panchanamas regarding the inquests and the condition of the scene of offence. The submission on behalf of the appellants was that it was that amusing that a person like Ramcharan should have arrived at the scene in so unusual a manner. The circumstances in which he came to the scene of the offence are borne out by the evidence of P.W. 1 Manohar Tikare, P.W. 2 Sudhakar Tikare and the Police Patil of Rajoli, P. W. 3 Tulshiram Tikare. 25. Manohar Tikare was collecting leaves by the side of Rajoli Railway Station and for that purpose had climbed on a tree, leaving his cycle by the side of the road, when he saw the accused No. 1 Ramcharan touching his cycle. Manohar shouted 'and got down from the tree and accused No.1 started running. 25. Manohar Tikare was collecting leaves by the side of Rajoli Railway Station and for that purpose had climbed on a tree, leaving his cycle by the side of the road, when he saw the accused No. 1 Ramcharan touching his cycle. Manohar shouted 'and got down from the tree and accused No.1 started running. Manohar then took his cycle and informed his brother Sudhakar (P. W. 2), and they found Ramcharan who had climbed upon the water-tank near the railway line. They took Ramcharan to the house of the Police Patil Tulshiram. Tulshiram's account shows that after learning about the incident at about 7.30 a.m, on July 7, 1984, he questioned the accused No. 1 and sent him to the police Station at Mul with his report (Ex. 29). The comment of the learned Counsel for the appellants was on the manner in which the accused No. 1 came to be identified in C0urt by Manohar, upon being asked whether he knew Ramcharan. We do not see any significance in this, because the other two witnesses, Sudhakar and Tulshiram who were examined immediately after Manohar on the same day, identified Ramcharan as the person who was caught on that day and taken to the police Station at Mul. A ponchanama of the place where the incident had occurred was drawn up by the police on that day, Shrihari (P.W. 4) being one of the panchas to that panchanama (Ex. 31). The evience shows that P.S.I. Chandel (P.W. 41) made an entry in the Station Diary regarding this incident and arrested Ramcharan under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On realising that Ramcharan was concerned with the dacoity, he informed the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur on telephone and upon the latter's instructions, transferred him to the Chandra pur Police Station. From P.S.I. Chandel's account, it is clear that Ramcharan was arrested for the offence alleged to have been committed at RajoH and not in connection with the offence of dacoity. It was urged that P.S.I. Chandel did not arrest Ramcharan, relying on the certain statements appearing in his cross-examination, but it was apparent that the arrest was not in respect of the offence of dacoity but for the other offence and he was merely transferred to the Chandrapur Police Station. It was urged that P.S.I. Chandel did not arrest Ramcharan, relying on the certain statements appearing in his cross-examination, but it was apparent that the arrest was not in respect of the offence of dacoity but for the other offence and he was merely transferred to the Chandrapur Police Station. P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56) states that he received information on telephone from the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur regarding the arrest of Ramcharan at Mul and after P.S.I. Chandel brought him to Chandrapur and handed over some papers in connection with his arrest, be took Ramcharan in his custody. It is apparent that Ramcharan was brought to Chandrapur at about 2 00 a.m., on 8th July, 1984 and was interrogated and arrested. 28.10.1988 : 26. The learned Counsel for the appellants, relying on the discrepancies about the date and the time of Ramcharan's arrest in the evidence of the witnesses from Rajoli and Ramcharan, urged that Ramcharan's account became suspect, because in the event of his arrest being effected on July 5, 1984, as claimed by him, there was no indication as to what transpired between July 5, 1984 and July 7, 1984 It must be noted that Ramcharan (P.W. 49) is an illiterate person. His father resided and worked as a labourer at Gondia. Ramcharan had visited his father in 1984 and stayed with him for about two days and was sitting at the Railway Platf0rm at Gondia, when one labour-contractor by name Indrapal Kewat met him there and took him to Ballarshah on being told that he was in search of a job. He was assigned the work of loading a truck and was paid only Rs. 750 as his wages. In the previous night, Ramcharan had slept in Chadrapal's house, but on the next day, finding that he was paid a paltry sum of Rs. 7.50, told him that he could not work for Indrapal unless he was paid more. When Indrapal refused to pay him more, Ramcharan left the work and went to Ballarshah railway platform. In the previous night, Ramcharan had slept in Chadrapal's house, but on the next day, finding that he was paid a paltry sum of Rs. 7.50, told him that he could not work for Indrapal unless he was paid more. When Indrapal refused to pay him more, Ramcharan left the work and went to Ballarshah railway platform. Though it was urged on behalf of the appellants that there was no reference to Indrapal Kewat in the confessional statement of Ramcharan recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, later, it is apparent that there was a reference to Kewat though; there was no reference to his first name Indrapal and, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the story regarding the employment by Indrapal came to be introduced, for the first time, when Ramcharan was put in the witness-box. Considerable criticism was also directed at the omission on the part of the investigating agency to search for Indrapal and examine him as a witness for lending assurance to the story given by Ramcharan, but P.I. Thakur’s evidence clearly shows that Indrapal could not be contacted and even Ramcharan stated that he did not know the locality where Indrapal's house was situated. It must be noted that BaIJarshah is a big place and Ramcharan, who was a stranger, may not have been able to show Jndrapal's house. We see no reason to disbelieve Ramcharan's account on this point, and further nothing, in our view, turns upon the omission on the part of the investigating agency to deliv deeper into the narrative preceding the incident given by Ramcharan. 27. After Ramcharan left Indrapal, he enquired about Babulal, Fulchand, Sheoprasad and Shamlal (accused Nos. 4, 3, 5 and 7), as they belonged to his village Fatpurwa, and he knew that they were residing at Ballarshah. He, ultimately, went to Ghugus File, met Babulal (accused No.4) and stayed with him in that night. We see nothing unusual in this conduct of Ramcharan, because accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 were known to him previously and belonged to the same part from which he hailed Babulal (accused No.4) promised to get work for him, on Monday, 2nd July. We have it from Ramcharan that five persons came to Babulal's house. He did not known them, but they had a talk with Babulal. 3, 4, 5 and 7 were known to him previously and belonged to the same part from which he hailed Babulal (accused No.4) promised to get work for him, on Monday, 2nd July. We have it from Ramcharan that five persons came to Babulal's house. He did not known them, but they had a talk with Babulal. These five persons were accused No. 2-Rampal, No. 6Basawan, No. 8-Pratap and No. 9-Ramkishor and one Murari who died on July 10 while in police custody. They left after the talk with Habulal and returned on the next day, Tuesday, 3rd July. Ramcharan referred to a talk between these persons and Babulal to the effect that that was the day of Amavasya and so a good day for looting. As we have indicated, the day was not of Amavasya but was the 5th day of the bright fortnight. But nothing turns upon what the perso'1S who were having the talks thought, whether it was the night of Amavasya, once it was clear that it was the night when there would be no moon-light in the early hours. This was not what Ramcharan says he thought, but what the others said and he had heard However, this part of the talk, which related to the day being Amavasya was not to be found in the statement of Ramcharan before the police, but for that reason alone, we do not think that Ram charan's account in this respect should be disbelieved, because the omission was only of a very minor nature. 28. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that it was odd that Ramcharan should not have been able to identify the five persons by their names when he gave evidence, and should have stated that he identified them only by their faces. We compared the notes of evidence recorded in English by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the vernacular record of the statement which was made by Ramcharan and it shows that he had only said that he knew those persons by faces and there was, therefore, no question of the witness not knowing the names of the five persons on the day on which he gave evidence. It would have been better for the learned Addl. It would have been better for the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to have compared his own notes with the vernacular record and see that no discrepancies, such as these, entered in English notes of evidence maintained by him. 29. On behalf of the appellants, it was emphasised that even in respect of the identification by Ramcharan, an identification parade should have been held in respect of the other persons whom he did not know and whom he claimed to have seen for the first time at Ballarshah on 2nd July, 1984, when he sought to identify the culprits on 8th July, 84. Ramcharan stated that be had disclosed the names of Babulal, Fulchand, Sheoprasad and Shamlal (accused Nos. 4,3,5 and 7) whom he knew previously and told the Police Inspector that he knew the other accused persons by their faces and could point out to them. His version is that he pointed out the rest of the accused persons who were present from 50 to 60 persons brought by the police, and these persons were then brought from Ballarshah to Chandrapur. P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56), in his cross-examination, stated that it did not happen that he arrested and brought 50 to 60 persons and asked Ramcharan to identify the other accused persons. The way in which the denial was got recorded in the cross-examination does not appear to us to be very happy. AU that Ramcharan has stated was that the other persons were present in 50 to 60 persons brought by the police and there thus was no Question of their arrest and it could be that from amongst those who were present, the other accused, whom Ramcharan did not know by names were picked up. Nothing, however, turns upon the discrepancy, if any, on this point, because if Ramcharan's version were to be accepted, these persons had visited Babulal's house on Monday, 2nd July, and Tuesday, 3rd July, were with him in the night of the incident and had also come to his (Babulal's) house on 4th July, in the morning, before Ramcharan left. Nothing, however, turns upon the discrepancy, if any, on this point, because if Ramcharan's version were to be accepted, these persons had visited Babulal's house on Monday, 2nd July, and Tuesday, 3rd July, were with him in the night of the incident and had also come to his (Babulal's) house on 4th July, in the morning, before Ramcharan left. Having seen all these persons closely for three days continuously and been with them for a long period while participating in the incident, it would be idle to think that when there was an occasion to see them on 8th July i.e., only within four days of the incident, Ramcharan would not be in a position to identify those persons and point them out to the police. 30. The submission was that even this identification would be hit by section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. As pointed out in Ramkrishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay1, the position of law on this point is as follows: "The physical fact of identification has thus no separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very process of identification and in so far as a police officer seeks to prove the fact of such identification such evidence of this would attract the operation of section 162 and would be inadmissible in evidence, the only exception being the evidence sought to be given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of identification which he would be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial." The futility of the identification parade in cases where the accused is known to the witness has been indicated in para-18 in Jagannath Singh v. The State of U.P.2, as follows: "It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1956, dated 15.1.1957 (SC) that the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well-known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of coursr if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. Of coursr if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witnesses did not know him previously." In the instant case, such a situation did not arise. The necessity to hold an identification parade would arise only when the accused is unknown to the witnesses and the absence thereof would raise serious doubt about the identification, for the first time in Court, as observed in Kanan v. State of Kerala3 and Virappal v. State of Haryana4. Having regard to the opportunity for observation which Ramcharan had and his identification within a few days after the occurrence leading to the arrest of the accused persons, in our judgment, they are strong circumstances which would show the correctness of the identification of the persons involved. 31. Turning again to the evidence of Ramcharan, he stated that on July 3, Babulal said that they were in need of money and that they were going out to loot people. Ramcharan protested that If the were caught, they would be sent to Jail, but Babulal assured him that they had been residing at Ballarshah only for about eight years and no one knew them. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, this would hardly be the conduct of a person, who was a stranger to the culprits and was hesitating, who would join in such a nefarious criminal act. With regard to the contention that Ramcharan was a stranger, it is apparent that he was not so, because he knew the accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 because they belonged to his village knew him previously and he had taken shelter in Babulal's house that night. According to Ramcharan, when he told Babulal that he wciuld not come, accused No. 3-Fulchand slapped him. He entreated them not to beat him, because he was their relation and said to them that he would accompany them and do whatever they might say. According to Ramcharan, when he told Babulal that he wciuld not come, accused No. 3-Fulchand slapped him. He entreated them not to beat him, because he was their relation and said to them that he would accompany them and do whatever they might say. We see nothing unlikely in this conduct, because Ramcharan obviously was in need of money and had nowhere to go and, in any case, he would not have been allowed to go away, when the persons had entertained the design of looting and Ramcharan was aware of it. Ramcharan accompanied them to the construction site. The party, comprising of ten persons, left in two groups, one consisting of accused No.3 Fulchand, No. 4-Babulal, No. 5-Sheoprasad and No. 7-Shamlal and Ramcharan who went by bus, and the rest met them at a place 1½ Kms. away from the petrol pump where the first group alighted from the bus, and walked in the direction of Ballarshah. Ramcharan spoke about his taking a bag (Article 144) from Babulal's house and the rest carrying knives and sticks. On reaching the spot near the Seed Centre, the others handed over their clothes to Ramcharan and he was asked to give a signal by hitting the ground with the stick with him thrice on spotting any approaching vehicle. The part of the story regarding the accused persons handing over their clothes to Ramcharan was not mentioned in the statement before the police, but if Ramcharan's account is otherwise acceptable, it would only be a matter of detail. With regard to the giving of signal on spotting the approaching vehicle, we find that there was no omission in this respect. We have referred to this part or Ramcharan’s account at this stage only in doing from June 30, 1984 when he came with Indrapal Kewat from Gondia to Ballarshah. We will consider his evidence with regard to the actual incident and the part played by him at the proper stage. 32. We have referred to this part or Ramcharan’s account at this stage only in doing from June 30, 1984 when he came with Indrapal Kewat from Gondia to Ballarshah. We will consider his evidence with regard to the actual incident and the part played by him at the proper stage. 32. After the incident was over, the party returned to Ballarshah and at about 9.30 a.m., on 4.7.1984 when accused No. 4-Babulal and accused No. 5-Sheopcasad and Ramcharan were in Babulal's house, accused No. 2 Rampal, No. 3-Fulchand, No. 6-Basawan, No. 8-Pratap and No. 9-Ramklshor came to and Babulal's house and Babulal asked Ramcharan to go to his home-town, because the police would be investigating into the matter and as he was a stranger, he would be suspected. He told Babulal that he had no money to go to his home-town, but Babulal refused to give him money saying that he had no money. According to Ramcharan, Babulal asked him not to inform anyone about the incident, but he told Babulal that he would not tell anyone unless asked, but if anybody would ask him, he would narrate the incident. - Accused No. 3-Fulchand then asked him to take oath of his son that he would not narrate the incident to anyone, but he refused to do so, and he then went to Chandrapur on foot. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, this part of the story was entirely unnatural, because if the accused persons were to have known that Ramcharan would disclose the incident, they would not allow him to leave. We must, however, note that if Ramcharan were to have participated in an incident in which five deaths were caused and three persons were injured in committing dacoity, there was no likelihood of Ramcharan, of his own volition, making a disclosure of the incident to anyone merely for the fear of the harm tightening around him. He would also be in the fear of harm at the hands of his erstwhile associates. Obviously, knowing that Ramcharan could not harm them, or even raise a finger against them, his associates drove him away without paying him anything. All this occurred on 4th July, 1984. 33. He would also be in the fear of harm at the hands of his erstwhile associates. Obviously, knowing that Ramcharan could not harm them, or even raise a finger against them, his associates drove him away without paying him anything. All this occurred on 4th July, 1984. 33. To return to the topic regarding the date of Ramcharan's apprehension by the police at Rajoli, according to Ramcharan, he left Chandrapur by train for Gondia at about 7.00 p.m., but a Ticket Collector made him alight because he had no ticket, at about 11.00 p.m. He went to the village nearby, begged for food and slept at the Railway Station. Next day, he went to the village, asked for food and again returned to the Railway Platform. He made enquiries as to the next Railway Station and was told that it was about six miles away. He, therefore, went in that direction and saw a cycle by the side of the tree and touched the cycle. This led to the incident to which we have already referred, in which Ramcharan came to be caught at Rajoli. 34. Reference was made to the statement of Ramcharan in his cross-examination, that he was taken on Thursday, 5th July, 1984, to the Mul Police Station. We have already referred to the evidence of three witnesses from Rajoli, the report of the Police Patil-Tulshiram and the evidence ofP.S.1. Chandel, which go to show that Ramcharan was arrested at Mul on 7th July, and this evidence is supported by official record contemporaneously made Ramcharan is an illiterate person who had participated in a ghastly incident, and unless he had reason to keep the count of the days and the time, it was not likely that he would remember the days and dates correctly. The learned Special Counsel appearing for the State drew our attention to the other evidence which would indicate that there was a slip about the days and nights mentioned in Ramcharan's examination and actually the difference would be of only one day and not two days, as was sought to be made out. In our view, however, nothing turns upon this discrepancy about a day, which might appear in the account given by Ramcharan, for the reasons already stated. 35. In our view, however, nothing turns upon this discrepancy about a day, which might appear in the account given by Ramcharan, for the reasons already stated. 35. The attempt on behalf of the appellants was to show that Ramcharan, who fell in the hands of the police, must have been used for getting certain persons falsely implicated in this offence, because there was a hue and cry from the public because of the incident near the Highway in which five deaths had occurred and the investigating machinery had not been able to get at the culprits. It is apparent that P.I. Thakur had engaged himself in drawing up the panchanamas of the scene of offence and other spots and collecting other information, and be has not spoken about the efforts made by the investigating agency for apprehending the real culprits. Only because P.I. Thakur has not referred to what other measures were taken by the police in this direction, it would not be fair to infer that nothing else in the matter of tracing the culprits was being done and, in any event, from the evidence to which we have already adverted, it was unlikely that someone, who was found near the railway line at Rajoli, would be used in this manner by the police and that such a person would cooperate with the police in their venture, even though he may not have been connected with the incident. The truth or otherwise of the version given by Ramcharan would have to be ascertained from the narrative given by him and the other corroboration it receives and not merely on the basis of a suspicion which the appellants' learned Counsel wanted to raise about the motives of the police in this respect. 36. At the time when P.I. Thakur took Ramcharan in his custody, no documents regarding his being handed over by P.S.I. Chandel to P.I. Thakur had been drawn and no record was prepared about handing over the documents which related to the investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed regarding the cycle by Ramcharan at Rajoli. 36. At the time when P.I. Thakur took Ramcharan in his custody, no documents regarding his being handed over by P.S.I. Chandel to P.I. Thakur had been drawn and no record was prepared about handing over the documents which related to the investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed regarding the cycle by Ramcharan at Rajoli. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on Bhagwansingh v. The State of Rajasthan5, but there the document which invited the observations of the Court was a private document which, in the circumstances of that case, was capable of creating certain suspicion, and it was in that context that it was observed that where an important document which bears on the offence alleged to have been committed by an accused, is produced before police officer some days later, the natural course for a police officer to follow was to take charge of the document under a panchnnama or memo. Here, the documents prepared in the course of investigation by the police at Rajoli were official documents and contemporaneous record was maintained about that in the Sana-Station Diary of Mul prepared on 7th July, 1984, where it was mentioned that there was a report of one Ramcharan in attempt to commit theft of a cycle. The entry in the Station Diary on 8th July, 1984, of Mul Police Station, showed that on the message received from P.S.I. Chandel, Ramcharan was being transferred in connection with the offence of dacoity, Crime No. 135 of 1984, to Chandra pur Police Station. This entry was made on 8th July, 84, and we see no reason to suspect the action of the police until Ramcharan was received in Chandrapur City Police Station at 2.00 a.m., on 8th July, 1984. 37. Ramcharan's account shows that he had told P SJ. Chandel at Mul about his connection with the offence of dacoity and it was after receiving information from him, at Chandrapur, that P.I. Thakur arrested the appellants and others at 6.00 a.m., on 8.7.1984. In this context, we may refer to the observations of the Allahabad High Court in Subedar v. Emperor6, to the effect that the statement made by an approver to the police at the time of his arrest giving the names of other persons who had joined in the offence can be used as against the latter only under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The use, which can legitimately be made of such information is merely this that when direct evidence is given against the accused at the trial, it is open to the defence to check such evidence by asking whether the name of a particular accused was mentioned or not at the time. It becomes evidence which may be used to test the consistency of the approver's story and it is information which leads to. the discovery of the accused, but it is no evidence of the guilt of the accused. We find that the evidence of Ramcharan could be received as evidence of his conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act, and it was this information which enabled the Investigating Officer, P.I. Thakur to take further steps in the matter. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having regard to all the above factors that no exception can be taken to the truthfulness of the story narrated by Ramcharan of these points, and his version, if corroboration were required, is adequately corroborated so far. 38. Turning to Ramcharan's narrative about his participation in the incident, with regard to the actual incident, Ramcharan stated that after reaching the road near the Seed Centre, accused No.3 Fulchand, No 4 Babulal and No.5 Sheoprasad went to the construction site and they were followed by accused No.2 Rampal, No.6 Basawan and No.7 Shamlal. According to the learned Counsel for the: appellants, there was an improvement in this respect, because Ramcharan was examined after the examination of two eye-witnesses whom he had heard and he, therefore, introduced the six persons going towards the construction site. It may be noted that Ramcharan's statement was recorded by the police much earlier and his confessional statement was recorded on 21st July, 1984, while his evidence on this point was recorded in the Court nearly three years later. No question was asked to Ramcharan regarding the alleged improvement of adding three more names, i.e., of accused Nos. 2, 6 and 7, in his cross-examination. Apparently, Ramcharan had not gone to the construction site along with the six others whom Doma (P.W. 5) has mentioned and he could not have spoken about the details of that incident as he remained by the side of the road with accused Nos. 8 and 9, Pratap and Ramkishor. 2, 6 and 7, in his cross-examination. Apparently, Ramcharan had not gone to the construction site along with the six others whom Doma (P.W. 5) has mentioned and he could not have spoken about the details of that incident as he remained by the side of the road with accused Nos. 8 and 9, Pratap and Ramkishor. Ramcharan is, however, specific that each of those six persons brought Ballis (rafters) from the construction site arid prior to that he had heard the voices of the victims entreating not to beat them. After their return to the road, five of the party stayed on one side of the road and four on the other side. 39. The sequence, in which the incidents occurred on the Highway, is given by Ramcharan. First, it was Raman Shanaishchandra who came on a Luna and he was beaten, dragged and thrown by the side of the road along with his two-wheeler. Raman's dead-body was later found on the spot. After sometime, another scooter on which two Sardarjis were riding, came to the place and two of the accused persons went to the scooter and each of them dealt stick blows to the scooter rider on his hands. The one who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter fought with four persons and the five' others fought with the one who was driving the scooter. Ramcharan claimed to have been by the side of the road at that time. Those, who were fighting with the one on the pillion, called the others saying that the Sardar was uncontrollable. After they came, they lifted that Sardarji and felled him on the ground and both were then dragged and thrown by the side of the road along with their scooter. Their shouting stopped after they were thrown there, but one of them escaped from the place. Ramcharan states that after that three trucks came from the direction of Ballarshah and they were asked to stop, but they were not stopped. One person then came from Chandrapur side and was proceeding towards Ballarshah on a cycle. One of the accused persons put a stick in the wheel of that cycle and accused No. 5-Sheoprasad, who is also known as Dhunda, and accused No.4' Babulal hit the cyclist with sticks. The cyclist had Rs. One person then came from Chandrapur side and was proceeding towards Ballarshah on a cycle. One of the accused persons put a stick in the wheel of that cycle and accused No. 5-Sheoprasad, who is also known as Dhunda, and accused No.4' Babulal hit the cyclist with sticks. The cyclist had Rs. 2000/- in his pocket, and his entreaties not to beat him were of no avail and he was beaten and thrown by the side of the road. This was followed by another scooter coming from the direction of Chandrapur with two persons on it to whom accused Nos. 2 and 6, Rampal and Basawan, gave stick-blows. Accused No. 8-Pratap gave a blow on the leg of a person who tried to run away and he fell down. They were both beaten by, all the accused and when they stopped shouting, they were thrown by the side of the road. Their scooter was also thrown in a ditch by the side of the road. According to Ramcharan, after this was over, the other accused persons asked him to run towards Ballarshah, but he said that he would not go alone and then he was taken with them through the jungle towards Ballarshah. 40. We have referred to the evidence of the three eye-witnesses who could providentially make their escape and their narrative supports the version given by Ramcharan in all respects, except on the identity of the accused persons concerned. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that there was a difference in the sequence given by the witnesses about the vehicles which arrived, but having regard to the nature of the incident, the fact that the lives of the eye-witnesses were in peril and the horrendous condition under which they had to make their escape, we do not think that the discrepancies regarding the order in which the vehicles came and the directions in which they went, can be regarded as reflecting upon the credibility of the eye-witnesses. All this evidently had been occurring in darkness, and even Ramcharan's recollection in this respect cannot but be too hazy because of the gruesome nature of the incident. All this evidently had been occurring in darkness, and even Ramcharan's recollection in this respect cannot but be too hazy because of the gruesome nature of the incident. We, therefore, attach no value to the discrepancies which the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out to us and, in any event they appear to us to be trivial and not of the type which should affect the credibility of the account given by Ramcharan in this respect. 41. We must, however, take note of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Ramcharan, while ascribing major roles to the appellants, had tried to show himself as one who hesitated to participate, who did nothing but to give a signal with regard to the approaching vehicles and one who merely set by the side of the road, while the others were indulging in violence and looting. The submission was that in these circumstances, Ramcharan's role would not be of one who had participated in the crime but of one who tried to exculpate himself while attempting to inculpate the rests. In Chandan v. State of Rajasthan7, it is observed that it is established as a rule of prudence that conviction can be based on the testimony of accomplice only if it is thought reliable as a whole being intrinsically natural and reliable and if it is corroborated by independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, connecting the accused with the crime. There, the only evidence against the accused was that of the approver and he claimed to be the spectator at every moment but did not participate at any stage. The Supreme Court found that apart from it the initial story appeared to be absolutely unnatural as according to him, he did not know anyone of the accused persons but a month before the incident they took him into confidence and told him to join them. The evidence of the witnesses as a whole did not appear to be natural and did not inspire confidence. There was also absence of corroboration and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants could not be maintained. The evidence of the witnesses as a whole did not appear to be natural and did not inspire confidence. There was also absence of corroboration and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants could not be maintained. In Balwant Kaur v. Union Territory of Chandigarh8, it was pointed out that independent corroboration in respect of material particulars of evidence of accomplice needed as a rule of law and practice, but the nature and extent of corroboration would depend on facts and circumstances of each case, and the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of accomplice and, in any event, should be entitled to benefit of doubt. Reference was made in particular to the observations in Joga Gala v. State of Gujarat9, where the Supreme Court took into consideration two factors. In the first place, it would appear from the evidence of the approver that his confession which preceded the pardon as a result of which he became approver was wholly exculpatory and the approver did not implicate himself in any way in the murderous assault on the deceased persons and, secondly, the High Court itself found that the approver falsely implicated three persons who had been acquitted by the trial Court and whose appeal the High Court itself dismissed in limine The submission was that the present case is no different We may point out that though unwilling Ramcharan did join the others in going to the place where the criminal act was to be committed, remained with them throughout, posted himself to give the warning signal, and though he did not indulge in the violence directly, he remained with them throughout, thus lending strength to the others by his mere presence and then joined them all while returning and remained with accused No.4 Babulal, even after he was aware of all that happened. When all this was evident from his own evidence as well as the confessional statement (Ex. 225) which is recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chandrapur, on July 21, 1984, it is not possible to agree with the submission that Ramcharan's statements were exculpatory. In fact, he was being tried with the others as having been concerned in the offence of dacoity and murder and also as a member of unlawful assembly. 225) which is recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chandrapur, on July 21, 1984, it is not possible to agree with the submission that Ramcharan's statements were exculpatory. In fact, he was being tried with the others as having been concerned in the offence of dacoity and murder and also as a member of unlawful assembly. If the evidence with respect to the complicity of the appellants in the crime were to be accepted, there can be no doubt that Ramcharan, by virtue of being a member of the unlawful assembly and being with the dacoits with the knowledge of their design and intention, would also be liable. We, therefore, do not think that the statements of Ramcharan were exculpatory and the principles enunciated in the aforesaid rulings, on which Shri Sirpurkar strongly relied, would not apply to Ramcharan's case. 42. In this context, we may refer to the observations in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab10. There, the approver did not say that he took any' active part in assault on the deceased, but his statement clearly showed that he was a privy to or an abettor in the commission of the offence and the Magistrate who granted the pardon to the approver was fully satisfied that the approver was going to make a full and complete disclosure which he did and, therefore, it could not be said that the provisions of section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been violated in any way. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Counsel for the State, normally pardon is granted to a person who has not played a major role in the incident in order to see that the one who has committed graver offence could be brought to book. He frankly pointed out that when it was found after the evidence of the two eye-witnesses had been recorded, that a conviction cannot possibly flow on the basis of that evidence, pardon was granted to Ramcharan and he came to be examined as a witness with a view that such a serious crime should not go unpunished. He frankly pointed out that when it was found after the evidence of the two eye-witnesses had been recorded, that a conviction cannot possibly flow on the basis of that evidence, pardon was granted to Ramcharan and he came to be examined as a witness with a view that such a serious crime should not go unpunished. We have looked into the confessional statement as well as the evidence of Ramcharan very carefully and we do not find anything to justify the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Ramcharan wanted to project himself as an innocent person and had made a wholly exculpatory statement. 43. It was then urged on behalf of the appellants that the presence of the approver in the Court when the eye-witnesses were being examined should greatly reduce the weight of the evidence and he relied on Babuli v. The State of Orissa11. There, the approver was tendered pardon at a very late stage of the trial, i.e., after 31 witnesses were examined. Those witnesses had been cross-examined on behalf of the approver and the Court observed that he had the dubious privilege of being able to hear closely almost the entire evidence led by the prosecution. The Supreme Court referred to the High Court's observations' that the prosecution had laid itself open to the criticism that pardon was tendered to one of the accused at the fag end of the trial in an effort to fill up the lacunae in its case. It must, however, be noted that there were other circumstances which the Supreme Court took into consideration and the decision turned upon the existence of the inimical relations between the sole eye-witness and the accused, the darkness at the place making it impossible to facilitate identification and the non-disclosure by the witnesses of the incident. As we have already pointed out, here the cross examination does not show that there was such an improvement by Ramcharan over the statement made to the police or in the confessional statement as would justify the criticism that the approver had changed his version from time to time, or had made material improvements. As we have already pointed out, here the cross examination does not show that there was such an improvement by Ramcharan over the statement made to the police or in the confessional statement as would justify the criticism that the approver had changed his version from time to time, or had made material improvements. On the other hand, it appears to us that the core of the evidence remained the same and whatever additional statements came to be made in the evidence were matters of detail and a reference to them could not have affected the credibility of the witness. The observations in Babuli's case, therefore, do not lend any assistance to the appellants. 44. Having referred to the previous and subsequent conduct of Ramcharan and his evidence with regard to the incident which is substantially the same to which the other eye-witnesses have deposed, we agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Ramcharan's evidence, apart from the fact that he was an approver, was such as could be relied upon. 45. We may, however, refer to another contention raised on behalf of the appellants, namely, that in the application for bail, which Ramcharan had made in the Sessions Court on 17.1.l987, he had stated that he' had been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for two years and six months and that the police had, with a view to getting rid of their troubles, made him an eye-witness and sent him to jail though be did not know anything about the incident. He also mentioned therein that as his home-town was away and he was worried about his family, he could not keep bis mental balance. He, therefore, prayed that he should be either released on bail or he should be tried expeditiously. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made an order on that application to the effect that he bad no powers to try the case and that it would be taken up as soon as he was invested with the powers. The contention of the appellants is that the mention in this application that Ramcharan had no knowledge about the incident showed that he must not have been present at that time. The contention of the appellants is that the mention in this application that Ramcharan had no knowledge about the incident showed that he must not have been present at that time. According to the learned Special Counsel for the State, unless the application for bail was put to Ramcharan in his cross-examination as required under section 145 of the Evidence Act, it could not be read in evidence, while it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the statement would amount to an admission. 46. In Biswanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad12, fonowing Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi13, it was pointed out that there is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined and is sought to be discredited by use of his prior statement. In the former case, an admission by a party is substantive evidence, if it fulfills the requirements of section 21 of the Evidence Act; in the latter case a prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness and does not become substantive evidence. In the former, there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is evidence proprio vigore; in the latter case, the Court cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of a prior contradictory statement unless it has been put to him, as required by section 145 of the Evidence Act. This judgment was rendered by three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court, but in Sitaram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil14, which is again a judgment of a Bench of three Honourable Judges after referring to Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi (supra), it was observed as follows: "An admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. The provisions in the Evidence Act that 'admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous land is a relevant piece of evidence. The provisions in the Evidence Act that 'admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous land is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party which has made it, it is found that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to dear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule. Therefore, a mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission, it is alleged to be, has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilised against him". 47. According to the learned Special Counsel for the State, even if we were to regard the statement in the bail application as an admission, since it had not been put to Ramcharan while he was cross-examined and no attempt was made in the Sessions Court to call his attention to this statement until the trial was over, we cannot for the first time allow the use of the statement in the bail application for assailing the evidence of Ramcharan. It cannot be said that in the present case, the appellants were unaware of the statement contained in the application for bail, because that was a matter of record and it could have been possible for them to use that statement at the trial for contradicting Ramcharan. Ramcharan was an accused at the trial until he was granted pardon and he came to be examined as a witness. However, a statement made by a co-accused previously cannot be regarded as an admission, because he cannot be regarded as a party to the case at a later stage or one who was an agent of the party. Ramcharan was an accused at the trial until he was granted pardon and he came to be examined as a witness. However, a statement made by a co-accused previously cannot be regarded as an admission, because he cannot be regarded as a party to the case at a later stage or one who was an agent of the party. When the statement in the bail application could have been put to Ramcharan in his cross-examination, he was not a party and, therefore, if the use of the statement was to be made for discarding his version with regard to the incident, in view of the observations in Sitaram's case (supra) that statement should have been put to him, and if it was not put to him, it is not permissible to the appellants at this stage to assail the evidence of Ramcharan on the basis of the statement as it appears in the bail application. 48. Apart from this, it is apparent that the question of weight to be attached to a statement is a matter different from its admissibility as an admission. In the present case, Ramcharan had made a confessional statement, wholly implicating him before the Magistrate on 21st July, 1984. The application for bail came to be made on 17.1.1987 and it bears Ramcharan's thumb-mark. Evidently, there was no question then of making him an eye-witness, because the pardon was tendered to him much later, i.e., on 21. 4. 1987, and it could be only his hope that he may be examined as a witness, for which there was no basis. Once he had made the confessional statement, there was no likelihood of his release on bail and if he was bent upon getting himself released, he probably felt that it would be more advantageous to him to deny all knowledge of the occurrence and secure his release. Having regard to these factors, it is not possible to attach any weight to the statement in the bail application that he did not know anything about the crime. We do not, therefore, think that the statement in the bail application, in any way, detracts from the credibility of the evidence which he gave in Court. 49. That takes us to the question of corroboration. We do not, therefore, think that the statement in the bail application, in any way, detracts from the credibility of the evidence which he gave in Court. 49. That takes us to the question of corroboration. Once the evidence of the eye-witnesses is found not to be useful for showing the connection of the accused persons with the crime and establishing their identity, their evidence generally about the incident cannot be regarded as corroboration which is required in respect of an approver's testimony. 50. P.I. Thakur (P.W.56) arrested the appellants at 6.00 a.m., and Murari at about 10.00 a.m. In consequence of what Ramcharan had stated while in police custody on 8.7.1984, he took two panchas Pakruddin (P.W. 27) and another, and went to the house of accused No.4-Babulal and seized a bag (Art. 144,) after preparing the memorandum (Ex. 105) regarding Ramcharan's statement, under the panchanama (Ex. 103). This article, according to Ramcharan, was carried by him from Babulal's house and brought back and kept, after the incident; in Babulal's house. But for the finding of this article, at the instance of Ramcharan, there is nothing in this exercise which is likely to incriminate Babulal. At 6.10 a.m., after Babulal's arrest, he made a statement in the presence of the panchas that he had kept a stick in the corner of his house and that he would produce it. The memorandum shows that the stick was kept concealed in his house and it came to be seized under the panchanama (Ex. 104) from his house. P.I. Thakur identified the stick (Art. 110). Fakruddin (P.W. 27) referred to Article .121 as the one seized at that time, while P.S.I.-Bante referred to it as Article 121. Article 12 could not be the stick, because it was a scarlet coloured small plastic box of tobacco. The identification by P. I. Thakur is in consonance with the contents of the panchanama (Ex. 104) where the length of the stick has been given as 1i feet, while the bamboo stick (Art. 121) is 21 cubics in length, and it could not have been the stick which was seized under the panchanama (Ex. 104). The stick, which was lent to the Chemical Analyser corresponds with description of the article pointed out by P.I.-Thakur and it appears as 0-3(3) in the Requisition (Ex. 104). The stick, which was lent to the Chemical Analyser corresponds with description of the article pointed out by P.I.-Thakur and it appears as 0-3(3) in the Requisition (Ex. 258) and it has been marked as Exhibit-67 in the Chemical Analyser's Report Ex:. 259) and it was found to have blood of 0' Group on it. We see no reason, in these circumstances, to discard the evidence regarding the identification of this stick by P.I. Thakur and if it were found in possession of Babulal (accused No.4) whose blood group was 'B', we would expect some explanation from him with regard to this article, but he have no explanation in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 51. It may be noted that Fakruddin and the other panch had been called to Chanrdapur City police Station in the morning when the accused Nos. 1 to 10 were arrested, and the same panchas were taken from the City Police Station, Chandrapur, to Ballarshah, 16 Kms, away, and the house of the accused persons were searched in their presence, all the accused persons also having been taken by the police to Ballarshah. Fakruddin was not able to recollect the details of the various panchanamas which were made on that day, nor could he identify all the articles without referring to the panchanama which he had signed. This was quite understandable, because Fakruddin was deposing to the searches and recoveries made nearly three years after the incident and we should have said, if it were otherwise, that his memory was remarkable and we would have approached the whole of his evidence with suspicion. We see nothing unusual in Fakruddin saying that he could not remember the details of the panchanamas. However, there is no doubt about the fact that the panchanamas were all prepared on that day contemporaneously with the seizures effected as mentioned in those panchanamas. 52. The learned Counsel for the appellants took exception to the same panchas being taken throughout, and no effort being made at taking local panchas at the time of house searches, but as observed in Himachal Pradesh Administration. v. Om Prakash15 it is not necessary either in law or in practice that where recoveries have to be effected from different places on the information furnished by the accused, different sets of persons should be called in to witness them. v. Om Prakash15 it is not necessary either in law or in practice that where recoveries have to be effected from different places on the information furnished by the accused, different sets of persons should be called in to witness them. The evidence relating to recoveries under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not similar to that contemplated under section 103 thereof, Since, in this case, the police had to make several searches and several recoveries and they had taken two ponchas at Chandrapur at 6.00 a.m., we see nothing irregular in the same panchas being taken throughout the proceedings on that day. Fakruddin is a dealer in trunks and had not figured as a panch earlier in any other cases and had nothing to do with the police. He cannot, therefore, be said to be a person interested in investigation and likely to depose any falsehood at the behest of the police. 53. Another submission with regard to the searches made of the houses and recoveries effected therefrom was that on some occasions the panchas had not entered the houses but stood by the door; but that, in our view, would not effect the credibility of the evidence regarding the seizure, because the tenements in which the accused persons resided were not larger than 10' x 10' or 10' x 12', and if recoveries were to be effected, there was a sufficient safeguard in the panchas standing near the door and making sure that nothing was being planted. Babulal (accused No.4) has offered no explanation in respect of this stick in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 54. In the search of accused No.4 Babulal's house, on that very day, an amount of Rs. 329/-, a sweater and a baniyan (Art. 62) came to be seized under the Panchanama (Ex. 107). The case consisted of two currency notes of the domination of Rs. 100/-, one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/-, one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 20/-, four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/-, six of Rs. 2/-, four of Re. 1/and change of Rs. 1/- The white baniyan was found to be stained with blood. The baniyan was identified as Article 108 (Ex. 100/-, one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/-, one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 20/-, four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/-, six of Rs. 2/-, four of Re. 1/and change of Rs. 1/- The white baniyan was found to be stained with blood. The baniyan was identified as Article 108 (Ex. (i5) by P.I. Thakur, and the currency notes as (Articles 124-A and 124-B) stained with blood at the time of the seizure, but the Chemical Analyser did not find any blood-stains on the two currency-notes, but found the Banivan (Article 108) stained with human-blood of Group 'B'. It is noteworthy that Babulars signature had been obtained at the time of seizure on the seizure-memo (Ex. 107) relating to these articles. We see nothing in the cross-examination of P.I. Thakur or Fakruddin which would give a lie to their version with regard to the seizure. One reason, which was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants for not accepting the evidence of these witnesses, was that the exclusive possession in respect of the houses had not been established in respect of any of the accused persons and no documentary evidence had been collected in this behalf. The evidence of P.I. Thakur shows that all the structures which came to be raised in that locality were encroachments and there were no municipal records about the ownership. In these circumstances, the omission to collect material establishing the ownership of any of these persons would not affect he prosecution case. It is apparent from the evidence of Ramcharan and the police officers that the accused persons had been taken along with the police party and the panch as at the time of the searches and the recoveries and whatever seizure-memos were prepared, bore the signatures of the persons who were in-charge of those places and none else resided in those house besides them. Fakruddin (P.W. 27) was not shown the Baniyan when his evidence was recorded, though he spoke about its seizure against Ex. 107. In the seizure-memo (Ex. 107) the article was describer as white Baniyan bearing label of 'VIMAL' Company with blood-stains. In his examination-in-chief, P.I. Thakur, while identifying the Baniyan of Vimal Company, seized from accused No.4 Babulal, pointed out to Article 62 as the said Baniyan. Article 62 in the List of Articles (Ex. 4) is a white Sando baniyan. 107. In the seizure-memo (Ex. 107) the article was describer as white Baniyan bearing label of 'VIMAL' Company with blood-stains. In his examination-in-chief, P.I. Thakur, while identifying the Baniyan of Vimal Company, seized from accused No.4 Babulal, pointed out to Article 62 as the said Baniyan. Article 62 in the List of Articles (Ex. 4) is a white Sando baniyan. In the requisition, dated 20th July, 1984, sent by PI. Chandrapur to the Chemical Analyser, Ex. 258, the baniyan (Article No. A-2) and Vimal Baniyan at Article D-3 of the same Company have been mentioned and the baniyan described as Article 65 in the Chemical Analyser's report has been shown to be stained with human blood of 'B' Group. Considering the mistake committed by P.I. Thakur in identifying the Baniyan and the omission on the part of the panch -Fakruddin to identify it, it is not possible for us to connect the Baniyan on which blood' of 'B'-Group was found as being the one which was seized from the house of accused No.4 Babulal, and that Baniyan will have to be excluded from consideration, while considering the articles which tend to incriminate Babulal. 55. According to P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56), the house of Shamlal (accused No.7) was searched and an under-wear, blue and brown coloured, stained with blood; (Article 81), was seized therefrom under the panchanama (Ex. J08). Fakruddin (P. W. 27) also spoke about the truth of the contents of the panchanama, after reading it, and identified the Article- 105 as the under-wear. This under-wear is marked as Article 0-6 in the requisition to the Chemical Analyser, Exhibit-258, and described as Article 71 in the report of the Chemical Analyser, on which human-blood or 'B' Group was found. The documents to which we have referred bear out the correctness of the identification by P.I. Thakur and show that the identification by Fakruddin was mistaken. Though the sample of Shamlal's blood was taken for blood-grouping, his blood-group could not be ascertained. There was no suggestion anywhere in the evidence that Shamlal had injuries on his person and that the underwear (Article 811 was stained with human blood. According to P.I.-Thakur, panchanamas were drawn up at the time of the arrest of the accused persons, but they were not produced at the trial. There was no suggestion anywhere in the evidence that Shamlal had injuries on his person and that the underwear (Article 811 was stained with human blood. According to P.I.-Thakur, panchanamas were drawn up at the time of the arrest of the accused persons, but they were not produced at the trial. Shri Sirpurkar urged that in view of non-production of these panchanamas, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution, but we do not think that the circumstances justify such an inference, as it was nobody's case that Shamlal had any bleeding injuries and the under-wear (Article 81) was stained with his blood. 56. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the description of the places had not been given in detail in the panchanama (Ex. 108), the reference being only to Shamlal Bharosa Rahidas as the person from whom it was seized and it was mentioned that it had been seized on the spot for the purposes of the investigation. But as we have pointed out, the place has been described by P.I. Thakur in his evidence as corner of accused No. 7-Shamlal's house and nothing, therefore, turns on the omission to describe the house in the panchanama. The thumb-mark of Shamlal was obtained on the seizure-memo at the time of the seizure and having regard to the support which Fakruddin (P.W. 27) gives to this seizure; we find P.I. Thakur's version in this respect to be acceptable. P.S.I.-Bante did not refer to this underwear, though he has stated that he was present at the time of panchanama (Ex. 108). 31.10.1988 57. We may point out that all the houses, which were searched, were in Ghugus File, Ballarshah, and from the evidence of P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56), it is clear that they comprised of small rooms with a single entrance, without any ventilators, and their sizes varied from 10' x 8' to 12' x 12'. P.I Thakur has given the location of each of those houses and, particularly, in respect of Shamlal's house, he stated that his house was about 10 to 12 feet a way to the east of accused No.4 Babulal's house. P.I Thakur has given the location of each of those houses and, particularly, in respect of Shamlal's house, he stated that his house was about 10 to 12 feet a way to the east of accused No.4 Babulal's house. Though Fakruddin (P.W. 27) was not in a position to give the description of each of those houses and the other details, we would, indeed, have been surprised if he should have been able to give all those details after a lapse of nearly three years when so many searches were effected. His presence along with the other panch at the time when the searches were effected has been established, and we see no reason to doubt the evidence regarding the recovery of the articles from accused No. 7-Shamlal's house, Sharnlal did not say anything with regards to these recoveries, besides saying that the evidence was false. 58. The second article by which accused No.7 Shamlal was sought to be connected with the incident, was some amount which was kept in the gap of the stones below a Neem-tree behind Gosawi Baba temple near the Power-House Station, the discovery of which was made on 20.7,1984 in consequence upon his statement that he had kept the amount there. P.I. Thakur prepared a memorandum of the information given at Exhibit-69 and went to the place shown by Shamlal and took out Rs. 720/- wrapped in a Lungi-cloth from a gap under a stone below the Neem tree and draw up the seizure memo (Ex. 70) to that effect. Munnawar Ali (P.W. 15) supported P.I. Thakur's version on this point. He was called by a police constable, while he was on way to the market, at about 11.00 am. He was employed with Minor Irrigation Department, and from his cross-examination, it is apparent that he is not the type of the person who would be under the influence of police. The submission on behalf of the appellants was that only one person had made a statement then before the police at Chandrapur, namely, Basawan (accused No.6), about the amount which he had kept under a bridge. It is apparent that Babulal and Shamlal, who were in another police jeep had not been questioned though they were near the Seed Centre until the recovery by Basawan was completed. It is apparent that Babulal and Shamlal, who were in another police jeep had not been questioned though they were near the Seed Centre until the recovery by Basawan was completed. We find it difficult to accept the submission that only a farce of recovery was made by taking three persons and taking out the articles which the police already knew. P.I. Thakur, however, stated in his evidence that the other accused persons also wanted to show something and, therefore, he had taken them also in another vehicle. Obviously, the statement by Shamlal leading to the recovery of the cash amount of Rs. 720/- came to be made when the police and the panahas went near about the spot. Considering the corroboration which P.I. Thakur's version receives from Munawwar Ali and the documents (Exs. 69 and 70), it must be held that the amount of Rs. 720/- was recovered from near about the scene of occurrence, pursuant to the discovery made by Shamlal (accused No.7). With regard to the submission that this cannot be regarded as the amount which was stolen, because there were no marks of identification on the currency notes of the value of Rs. 720/-, it must be noted that beyond saying that the evidence in this respect was false, nothing was said by accused No. 7-Shamlal. There had been a dacoity in the night of 3rd July, 1984, and if Shamlal were to have kept the amount at a desolate place, that would be an unusual circumstance requiring some explanation. If the money were unconnected with the offence of dacoity and was found at the instance of Shamlal, the presumption would be that this amount was the one of which Shamlal came into possession in the dacoity. 59. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, urged that the presumption available under Illustration-A of section 114 of Evidence Act, which is only in respect of stolen property, cannot be attracted unless it was shown that the property was stolen. Though, we agree with the submission that illustration. A would not be attracted in the present case, that is a presumption which would apply to the offence of theft or of receiving goods knowing them to be stolen, but the Illustrations given under section 114 would not be exhaustive of the cases in which a presumption under the text of section 114 can legitimately be drawn. A would not be attracted in the present case, that is a presumption which would apply to the offence of theft or of receiving goods knowing them to be stolen, but the Illustrations given under section 114 would not be exhaustive of the cases in which a presumption under the text of section 114 can legitimately be drawn. Under section 114, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. The effect of this provision is to make it perfectly clear that courts of justice are to use their own common sense and experience in judging of the effect of particular facts, and that they are to be subject to no particular rules whatever on the subject, as said by Sir James Stephen while introducing the Bill which lay to the repealing Act No.8 of 1938, noticed at page 1024 of Sarkar on Evidence, 13th Edition. The purpose of looking into corroborative circumstances in the present case is only to see whether there is corroboration from an independent source to the evidence of the approver. In Jananendra Nath Ghose v. The State of West Bengal16 it was pointed out that the moment there is corroborative evidence which connects or tends to connect an accused with the crime such corroborative evidence relates to the identity of the accused in connection with that crime. There should be corroboration in material particulars not only concerning the crime but corroboration of the approver's story by evidence which connects or tends to connect an accused with the crime. It is this corroborative evidence which determines the mind of the Court or a jury that the approver's evidence that the accused committed the crime is true. The nature of the corroboration will necessarily vary according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. It is this corroborative evidence which determines the mind of the Court or a jury that the approver's evidence that the accused committed the crime is true. The nature of the corroboration will necessarily vary according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. The Supreme Court observed further that it would be in high degree dangerous to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as corroboration, except to say that corroborative evidence is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story of the accomplice that the accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it was committed by the accused. Evidently, the test would not be whether the corroborative evidence, independently of the approver's evidence, brings home the guilt to the accused. 60. We might in this context consider the submission on behalf of the appellants that the approver had reason to implicate the accused No. 7-Shamlal and accused No.5 Sheoprasad because of a previous incident which had occurred in May, 1984 in their village. In their written-statements, accused No. 5-Sheoprasad and accused No. 7- Shamlal, at Exhibits-280 and 281, stated that in an incident where Sheoprasad had sprinkled colour on the person of Ramcharan's sister Sumeliya at the time of Holi, Ramcharan's father Ramashraya got irritated and came to Sheoprasad's house and abused him. Sheoprasad dealt a blow with stick on the head of Ramashraya and thereafter a complaint was made to the Chief of the village, Ramlakhan Kurmi (DW. 3) was examined as a witness in support of this plea and be stated that in respect of this incident, he was told by the Chowkidar of the village that a quarrel took place at about 5.00 p.m. He called both the parties and got the matter settled and asked them not to lodge any report in the police station. Ramlakhan, evidently, had not seen the incident himself. The Chowkidar was not examined and there is a very slander support to the versions of accused Nos. 5 and 7 regarding the previous enmity. In any event, the matter had been settled amicably and none of the parties thereafter nursed a sense of grievance and no reports had been made to the police. The Chowkidar was not examined and there is a very slander support to the versions of accused Nos. 5 and 7 regarding the previous enmity. In any event, the matter had been settled amicably and none of the parties thereafter nursed a sense of grievance and no reports had been made to the police. Considering all this, we do not think that there was a motive for Ramcharan to rope in the accused Nos 5 and 7 falsely in the offence of murder. On the other hand, it is apparent that accused Nos. 5 and 7, who belonged to Ramcharan's part of the country, were known to him and it would be to them that he would turn in the event of his requiring help at Ballarshah where he bad been stranded. We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in inferring that there was no question in these circumstances of the existence of enmity between Ramcharan and accused Nos. 5 and 7. 61. On the question of independent corroboration of the approver's version regarding accused No. 5-Sheoprasad, we would refer to the evidence of P.I. Thakur. In the search of Sheoprasad's house on 8.7.1984, in the presence of panch Fakruddin, a Lungi and a muffler (Arts. 111 and 112) were seized under the seizure-memo (Exh 111). There were no stains of blood on these clothes and nothing turns upon the seizure of these articles from Sheoprasad's house. According to P.I. Thakur, on 19.7.1984, Sheoprasad (accused No.5) made a statement before him, while the panchas Ashfaq and Deorao were present, that he had buried and concealed certain articles under a tamarind tree hi the jungle. He prepared a memorandum (Ex. 75) to that effect. This statement was made in the Police Station at Chandrapur at 6.30 a.m. Sheoprasad then showed the way, when he had been taken in a jeep, car, and at his instance the jeep was stopped near the Porest Nursary on Chandrapur-Ballarshah road. At a distance of about 200 to 300 paces from that place near a tamarind tree, Sheoprasad lifted a stone, removed some earth and took out a bundle which contained a wrist-watch bearing H.M.T. Kranti Make and an amount of Rs. 360/-, i.e. three currency notes of Rs 100/-, one of Rs 50/- and one of Rs. 10/-. One of the currency notes of Rs. 360/-, i.e. three currency notes of Rs 100/-, one of Rs 50/- and one of Rs. 10/-. One of the currency notes of Rs. 100/- had a figure 20' written on it and it was encircled in pencil. These articles came to be seized under the seizure-memo (Ex. 76). The wrist-watch was identified as Article 131 before the Court, both by P.I. Thakur and P.W. 16 Abdul Ashfaq. Their evidence is supported by the documents (Exs. 75 and 76) on this point, and after considering the answers given by these witnesses in cross. examination, we find that there is nothing which would show that they were not telling the truth about the recovery of these articles upon the information given by Sheoprasad (accused No.5), which showed that it was he who had concealed them there. 62. The prosecution led evidence to show that the wrist-watch (Art. 131) belonged to Raman Shanaishchandra. Chhotelal Jaiswal (P.W. 30) states that he had presented the wristwatch (Art. J 31) and a finger ring bearing letters R/S at the time of Raman's wedding with his daughter Sandhya, on February 20, 1981. He stated that he could identify these articles which were given to Sandhya because her wedding had taken place 2 or 3 years back, while such particulars could not be given in respect of the articles presented to his other children at the time of their weddings. Though he referred to the wrist-watch being of H.M.T. Kranti Make in his examination-in-chief, he had not given this mark of identification when his statement was recorded by the police on July 10, 1984. Dnyaneshwar Dhomane (P.W. 29) stated that he had prepared the gold-ring (Art. 141) from the piece of a gold which had been given to him by Chhotelal and an entry regarding this was made in the Register (Art. 123) which was maintained in the shop. It was pointed out to us that there were two entries bearing the same No. 328 in the Register, but we do not think that only for that reason, the evidence of Dnyaneshwar about the identification of the ring (Art. 144) should not be accepted as he was the person who had prepared the gold-ring and any inadvertant irregularity in maintaining the register (Art. 121) would not detract from the truth of his evidence, if it is otherwise acceptable. Rajendra Jaiswal (P. W. 8) who is the nephew of Raman Shanaishchandra who died in the incident of dacoity, stated that the wrist-watch (Art. 131) and the ring (Art. 14 1) belonged to Raman and he had himself on many occasions used the ring and the wrist-watch. On the part of his testimony, there was no cross-examination. The criticism of his evidence was that he was not asked to identify the articles by holding an identification parade, and as is apparent from his cross-examination, the police had brought 3 or 4 watches and 3 or 4 rings and out of them he had identified the ring and the wrist watch as belonging to Raman. The mark R/S on the ring was a distinctive mark, and though Rajendra admitted that wrist-watches such as Article 131 were available in open market, it is noteworthy that it was not the contention of Sheoprasad (accused No 5) that he had purchased this article in open market. Motiram Chandwani (P.W. 24) spoke about having sold a wrist-watch of H.M.T. Kranti on 17.2.1981 to Chhotelal Jaiswani, and he identified the original receipt (Ex. 96) which he had issued. It was brought out in his cross-examination that all the H.M.T. watches of Kranti Make have the same number, and on seeing a particular bill and a watch, he would be able to say whether the watch was sold under the bill or not, because the description of the watch is given in the bill and if he had not seen the receipt (Ex. 96), he could not have said that the watch was sold from his shop. In fact, the evidence of Motiram limits the scope of error and it is apparent that the watch seized was not a watch which could be found with anyone, but it was a watch from a particular batch, one of which was sold to Chhotelal and came to be given to Raman. In fact, the evidence of Motiram limits the scope of error and it is apparent that the watch seized was not a watch which could be found with anyone, but it was a watch from a particular batch, one of which was sold to Chhotelal and came to be given to Raman. Reading his evidence in the context of Rajendra's version that he had seen Raman wearing the watch and that he had himself used the watch on several occasions, we see no reason to doubt the evidence which shows that the watch (Art. 131) and the gold-ring (Art. 140 belonged to Raman Shanaischandra who met with his death in the incident of dacoity, within a fortnight of the incident, when it was improbable that the watch would have changed hands and this would raise the presumption that Sheoprasad was involved in the dacoity. This lends strong support' to the evidence of Ramcharan, the approver. As we have pointed out, no explanation was given by Sheoprasad (accused No.5) in respect of the watch. 63. With regard to one of the currency notes seized at the instance of Sheoprasad (accused No.5), bearing figure 20' which was encircled in pencil, Mahendrasingh (P.W. 33) stated that he had received Rs. 5000/- in one bundle, and Rs. 40/- separately, from the owner of Rajura Transport Service at Rajura, in the evening of 3.7.1984, and that he had paid Rs. 2000/- in currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-, and on the white portion of upper most note of that bundle, a figure 20' was written in pencil. He had kept this money in his VIP bag along with the envelope (Art. 127). There is printed material on the envelope that if undelivered, it may be returned to Bengal Nagpur Roadways Corporation and the address thereon in manuscript writing shows that it was addressed to Mahendrasingh Mangat, B. and R.C. Nagpur. The currency note bearing the mark 20' in pencil, unfortunately, was not preserved by the trial Court for identification and the money came to be deposited with the Treasury. A suggestion was made to Mahendrasingh that an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- was not paid to him and that he had falsely stated that the figure 20' was written on the top of the note of the bundle of Rs. 2000/-. In respect of the amount of Rs. A suggestion was made to Mahendrasingh that an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- was not paid to him and that he had falsely stated that the figure 20' was written on the top of the note of the bundle of Rs. 2000/-. In respect of the amount of Rs. 5040/-, he had issued vouchers (Exs. 128 to 130) under his signature to Rajendra Transport Service, and they came to be seized from Rajura Transport Service under a panchanama. Bhimrao Bhumkar (P.W. 21) spoke about having paid Rs. 5040/- and Rs. 2000/- to Mahendrasingh and Baldeosingh on 3.7.1984 under three vouchers (Exs. 128 to 130). About Rs. 2000/-, he stated that he had given that amount as advance and one of those notes of Rs. 100/-, the figure 20' was written and rounded up by him as he had given 20 currency notes of Rs. 100/- to Mahendrasingh. No writing was obtained in respect of the amount of Rs. 2000/- given as advance, but we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Mabendrasingh and Bhimrao Bhumkar about the payment of this amount. Though an attempt was made to show in Bhumkar's cross-examination that he had not made the statement that he had given Ro. 2000/- as advance to Mahendrasingh and Baldeosingh, that omission was not proved in the evidence of P.S.I.-Pande (P.W. 54). The fact, that Rs. 2000/- had been paid to Mahendrasingh and it included a currency note with the aforesaid mark, and at the time of the seizure, this mark was found on one of the currency notes of Rs. 100/- and it was later identified by Bhumkar as having been made by him, unmistakably points that the money which was recovered III consequence of the information given by Sheoprasad (accused No.5) was property received in dacoity. This circum5tance would also bear out that Sheoprasad (accused No.5) was one of the persons who was involved in the dacoity and would support Ramcharan's account regarding his presence. 64. We must refer in this context to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no opportunity for any of the persons who were returning after the dacoity, to conceal the articles which they had received in the dacoity, on the way from the scene of occurrence upto Ballarshah. 64. We must refer in this context to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no opportunity for any of the persons who were returning after the dacoity, to conceal the articles which they had received in the dacoity, on the way from the scene of occurrence upto Ballarshah. Reliance was place on the confessional statement of Ramcharan at Exhibit-225 which runs as follows: "They had robbed the money from the persons who were assaulted by them. While returning, we all stayed at one place in the forest (Jungle). At that p1ace Babulal lighted a match stick. The moneys were with Fulchand and he was counting them. Babula1 showed me a bundle of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter we reached Ballarshah at about 12-10'clock in the midnight. I remained sitting on a cot (wooden) (charpai) outside the house." This was sought to be contrasted with P.W. 49 Ramcharan's version in his examination-in-chief that after Babulal lighted the match stick and he saw Fulchand counting the money which contained currency notes of Rs. 100/-. Six accused persons went by Ballarshah Power House side and he (Ramcharan), Rampal (accused No.2), Ramkishor (accused No.3) and Murari went by Paper Mill side to Ballarshah City and reached the house of Babulal at mid-night, and at about 2.00 or 2.30 a.m., rest of the six accused persons also came to the house of accused Babulal (No.4), and nine persons then went inside the room of the house of Babulal and he was made to sit out. It was urged that there was a definite improvement regarding the six others going together by Ballarshah Power House side, and this improvement was deliberately made after Ramcharan heard the evidence of Maheshkar (P.W. 18) that be had seen at about 2.30 or 3.00 a.m, six persons going towards the railway' line. We do not refer to the other details given by Ramchandra Maheshkar (P. W. 18), because they were stated for the first time in Court; but his version that he saw six persons going towards the railway-line seems to us to be credible, because immediately after he became aware of the presence of the strangers, he informed the Shift Engineer, Shri Sathe, on telephone about what he had seen and Shri Sathe (P. W. 17) supports him on this point. It may be noted that from the evidence of these two witnesses and the other evidence on record, it is clear that Ram Mandir and Gosawi Baba temple, which are in the vicinity of the Power House, are to the south of Chandrapur in the direction of Ballarshah, and if the culprits were to take this route by the side of the jungle, Gosawi Baba temple and Ram Mandir would be near about the path they were taking. In his confessional statement, no details were given by Ramcharan, and the circumstance that the six persons were proceeding at the odd hour at night, is established independently by the evidence of Maheshkar (P.W. 18), though there may have been an omission in the confessional statement about the splitting up of the party. We see nothing in the omission which would show that Ramcharan's version was a deliberate improvement, because this was after all a matter of detail and it has been established by other evidence. 65. The emphasis, however, was on the in availability of an opportunity to these who were going with Ramcharan, namely, Rampal, Ramkishor and Murari, to conceal the property which was with them. The party had been walking over a distance of about 8 or 9 Kms., and it cannot be said that the two groups would be walking as a close knit i group throughout. It is quite probable that some of the party might be tempted to secret away a part of the property for their own benefit and not put it in the common pool which had to be distributed later. We, therefore, see nothing improbable in some of the persons involved in the incident concealing a part of the property on their way to Ballarshah, and this was not something which they could have done only after reaching Ballarshah with the property that could have been distributed. 66. In respect of Fulchand (accused No. 3), the evidence of P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56) and panch Fakruddin (P.W. 27) shows that when his house in Ghugus File was searched at 10.00 a.m. an envelope (Article 127) bearing the name of Mahendrasingh's Company, in which an amount of Rs. 310/- was kept, and an old bloodstained cotton Baniyan of red ochre colour, were seized under the seizure memo (Ex. 109). 310/- was kept, and an old bloodstained cotton Baniyan of red ochre colour, were seized under the seizure memo (Ex. 109). P.I. Thakur identified the cotton Baniyan as Article 113 which corresponds to Exhibit-72 given to it by the Chemical Analyser. Fakruddin, while purporting to identify the Baniyan seized at that time, referred to Article 78 which is a Manila Umbar which corresponds to Chemical Analyser's No. 57 and is described as cut-half Manila, but that was from the articles wrapped in cloth labelled C-5 mentioned in the requisition, dated July 20, 19M, (Exhibit-258), which described the clothes of a deceased person. The old cotton Baniyan, red ochre colour, is at item No.7, Article D-7, in the list of articles, seized from accused persons. It would, therefore, be clear that the Identification by P.I. Thakur was correct, and having regard to the lapses of memory which Fakruddin showed, his identification was incorrect. The Chemical Analyser's report (Ex. 259) showed that the Baniyan (Art. 113) was smeared with blood, though the results with regard to grouping were inconclusive. Accused No.3 Fulchand stated that the evidence on this point was false. We need not refer to the other objections regarding the identity of the house and the other circumstances, as we have referred to them in detail earlier, and have not found any substance in them. These articles came to be seized soon after Fulchand's arrest. In the course of investigation, blood group of Fulchand was found to be 'A', but It was nobody's case that Fulchand had injuries on his person and that his Baniyan got stained with his own blood, We have already referred to P. W. 33 Mahendrasingh's account regarding similar envelopes being kept in the V.I.P. bag (Art. 55) which was found at the scene of the incident. The name of Bengal Nagpur Roadways Corporation was printed on the envelope. Considering the circumstances in which Mahendrasingh was removed at the time of the incident and his V.I.P. bag (Art. 55) remained at the scene of occurrence, and the envelope (Art 127) was found in the search of the house of Fulchand (accused No.3), there can be no manner of doubt that Fulchand came into possession of these articles in the dacoity, and this supports the version of the approver- Ramcharan also. 67. 67. On 21.7.1984, Fulchand made a statement before P.S.I. Pande and Panch Ashfaq that he had concealed a stick near Gosawi Baba Mandir. His statement was recorded at Exhibit-83, and at the place indicated by him, he took out the stick (Art. 119) from a heap of earth. This stick was not sent to the Chemical Analyser and, therefore, nothing turns upon the recovery of the stick at his instance. 68. That brings us to the evidence relating to accused No. 2.Rampal. His house was searched on 8-7-1984 by P.I. Thakur and a wrist-watch (Art. 114) of H.M.T. (Avinash) Company and a gold-chain (Art. 125) came to be seized. The panchanama (Ex. 110), which came to be prepared at that time, was signed by Rampal. However, it does not refer to the gold-chain (Art. 125), but Shri Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, pointed out to us that a separate panchanama Ex. 266 had been prepared for that article, but the gold-chain (Art. 125) was not identified in the evidence and we need not refer to that article. The watch (Art. 114) bore the letters P.D.W. and the date 26-6-1980. The evidence of Vishwanath Chenekar (P.W. 11), Wasudha (P.W. 9) and Sadhashiv Bhende (P.W. 35) shows that Sadashiv Bhende. who was a salesman of the shop of one Jayantilal at Akola, sold an R.M.T. Avinash wrist-watch on 30-5-1980 for Rs. 278/- to V.R. Chenekar and issued the receipt (Ex. 36) in this respect. Wasudha's evidence shows that the letters 'P.D.W.' and the date 26-6-1980, which was the date of their marriage, were carved on the wrist-watch (Art. 114) by her husband Prakash Vyahadkar, after the wedding, and he had told her about it. Though she could not say when exactly this carving was made on this wrist-watch, we see no reason to disbelieve her account about this distinctive mark on the watch and the evidence of these witnesses establishes that the watch belonged to Prakash Vyahakar. Wasudha's evidence shows that Prakash Vyahadkar had not received his pay (Rs. 700/- or Rs. 750/-) until 2-7-1984 and he was to bring his pay on 3-7-1984. They used to reside at Visapur about 7 or 8 Kms. from Chandrapur and Prakash used to come daily to Chandrapur from Visapur on his cycle. He used to carry a steel-box (Art. 17) for tobacco on which his name was engraved. 700/- or Rs. 750/-) until 2-7-1984 and he was to bring his pay on 3-7-1984. They used to reside at Visapur about 7 or 8 Kms. from Chandrapur and Prakash used to come daily to Chandrapur from Visapur on his cycle. He used to carry a steel-box (Art. 17) for tobacco on which his name was engraved. As he did not return on 3-7-1984, she thought that he might be staying with his father at Chandrapur, and when she returned home at about 11.00 am, on 4-7-1984, after teaching, she was told that her husband was serious, and when she went to the General Hospital at Chandrapur, she found Prakash Vyahadkar's body in the mortuary and identified it. The tobacco box was found discarded at the scene of the occurrence in the night between 3rd and 4th July, 1984, while the wrist-watch (Art. 114), as we have indicated, came to be seized in the house search of Rampal on 8-7-1984. There can be no manner of doubt, in these circumstances, that the watch was obtained by accused No. 2-Rampal in the dacoity after the dacoits had killed Prakash Vyahadkar. 69. The second recovery made at the instance of accused No. 2-Rampal was on 9-7-1984. According to P.I. Thakur and Panch Fakruddin, Rampal, while in police custody, made a statement that he was willing to produce a bamboo stick which he had hidden in the jungle and one gold-ring which he had kept hidden in his house and a memorandum (Ex. 115) was drawn up. Rampal then took them to the place indicated and produced a bamboo-stick (Art. 147) and it was seized under the panchanama (Ex. 116). The stick (Art. 147) had some blood-stains on it and it was found to be broken. Some pieces of this broken bamboo-stick were found at the scene of incident. The stick (Art. 147) and the pieces were sent to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for comparison and the Chemical Analyser's report (Ex. 261) shows that the bamboo-chips, which were found at the scene of the offence and the broken bamboo-stick appeared microscopically to be similar. The report (Ex. 261-A) sent by the Chemical Analyser on 12-2-1985 to the Police Inspector, Chandrapur City, showed that the bamboo-chip (Ex. 22) showed characteristic matching "physical fit" with that of Ex. 68, thus, showing that Exhibit 22 is a part of Exhibit-68. The Chemical Analyser's report (Ex. The report (Ex. 261-A) sent by the Chemical Analyser on 12-2-1985 to the Police Inspector, Chandrapur City, showed that the bamboo-chip (Ex. 22) showed characteristic matching "physical fit" with that of Ex. 68, thus, showing that Exhibit 22 is a part of Exhibit-68. The Chemical Analyser's report (Ex. 259) shows that the bamboo-chip had blood of 'B'-Group and the stick (Ex. 68) was stained with blood of 0' Group. Rampal's own blood, as gathered during the investigation, was of 'B'-Group. We may point out here that from the articles, which related to the injured Doma, deceased Tanba and deceased Raman, it is clear that their blood was of 'O'-Group. The bloodgroup of injured surendra and Mahendra Singh was 'B' and deceased Prakash Vyahadkar's blood-group was 0'. It may be noted that accused-Ram pal refused to take out the ring from his house on that day because people had collected there. The recovery of the stuck (A.rt. 147) at the instance of Rampal (accused No.2), however, is a very strong circumstance against him and corroborates the version about his involvement in the incident. 70. On 21 7.1984, accused No. 2-Rampal, while in police custody, made a statement that he had concealed a gold ring and some amount near Ram Mandir and lie would produce it. The memorandum (EK. 81) was drawn up between 11.00 and 11.30 a.m., and the party proceeded to the place indicated by Rampal and there Rampal took out from under the Neem tree behind Ram Mandir, a bundle of notes and a gold-ring (Art. 141) bearing the monogram 'R-S', and they were seized under the panchanama (Ex. 82), along with currency notes of the value of Rs. 1300/- of the denomination of Rs. 50/-. We have already pointed out earlier that the gold-ring (Art. 141) bad been presented by Chhotelal Jaiswal to the deceased Raman Shanaishchandra and was identified by Rajendra (P. W. 57). We might only say that Shri Slrpurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, referred to the non-examination of Raman's wife Sandhya, but having regard to tile mass of evidence adduced by the prosecution, we do not think that there was anything to be gained in the matter of identification by examining Raman's wife Sandhya. The fact that such a large amount as Rs. The fact that such a large amount as Rs. 1300/- came to be left at a desolate place, itself, speaks about the money being forgotten and when it was found along with the identifiable gold-ring (Art. 141), it is obvious that the money was also referrable to the money stolen in the course of the dacoity. We have already referred to the part of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that if Rampal were to have returned in the Company of Ramcharan, Ramkisbor and Murari, after the dacoity, there would not be any opportunity for him to conceal it on the way and rejected that argument, because it is clear to us, having the distance to be traversed and the time available, that nothing could have prevented someone in the position of Rampal to secret away part of the property for his own benefit. 71. However, Rampal's defence was that he was working with the colliery from 11.00 pm. to 7 00 pm. on 3-7-1984 as an underground worked and he could not have been present at a place so far away from his place of work for committing dacoity. According to Dhunnilal (D.W. 3 for accused Nos. 2,3,6, 8 and 9) (Ex 3271, Rampal, was working in the shift from 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a m. and his attendance was marked in the Register (Ex.328). Dhunnilal was working as a clerk in Ballarpur Colliery at that time According to him, a token is given to each of the workers from 10.30 p.m. and their attendance is marked in the Register, and after the worker returns from work, again the time of his going out is also mentioned in the Register The procedure is "that while going, the worker hands over the token, tells his name and the clerk puts the time of his exit-against his name. The way to go to the underground mine was in front of his office through the verandah of the office and he could see the workers going for work. From the situation as it appears from the evidence, it is clear that the way through the verandah leads to a gate and from the gate, the worker goes for work underground by a lift. From the situation as it appears from the evidence, it is clear that the way through the verandah leads to a gate and from the gate, the worker goes for work underground by a lift. The clerk goes to the room while the lift is operated, alongwith the Register, and verifies whether all the workers have gone underground to the mine and each shift comprises of about 275 to 100 workers. It is clear from his account that as far as he is concerned the better part of his job of identification of the worker who has actually gone underground is complete as soon as the token is issued, and having regard to the number of workers to whom tokens have to be given, it will be well-nigh impossible for him to verify whether each of the workers, to whom tokens have been issued, has gone inside That the register is not properly maintained is apparent from the fact that on 7-7 1984, Rampal was shown to be on sick leave and that entry was corrected by the Manager after the police arrived, and Rampal was marked as absent. Body searchers and Bankmen are posted for duty when the workers go to the underground pits, but they do not maintain any Register in respect of the persons going underground, though they check them. Dhunnilal admitted that he had not gone to the underground-pit and seen Rampal working on those days. The prosecution wanted to show that there was an attempt to manipulate the entries in this Register, because Rampal wrote a letter on 20th July, 1984, while he was in jail, as is apparent from the evidence of Shri Ingle, who was then the Jailor at Central Jail, at Nagpur, to one Chilani at Ballarshah and that letter was censored, and it related to seeing how the record was kept in the Colliery. That post-card was not proved and was not admitted in evidence. The learned Special Counsel for the State urged that since the post-card was included in the supplementary paper-book, at the instance of the appellants, it should be read in evidence. It was, however, the duty or the prosecution to prove that letter at the appropriate stage, and if the prosecution has not done so, it is not possible for us to refer to that letter at this stage. It was, however, the duty or the prosecution to prove that letter at the appropriate stage, and if the prosecution has not done so, it is not possible for us to refer to that letter at this stage. Irrespective of the contents of that letter we find that the evidence of Dhunnilal (D.W.3-Ex. 327) does not establish the presence of Rampal on duty at the Colliery from 11-00 pm., to 7-00 a.m., on 3-7-1984, and the Register (Ex. 328), on which reliance was placed, is also of no value because it was not regularly kept. The alibi of Rampal (accused No.2) cannot, therefore, be accepted. 72. In the search of house of accused No. 6 Basawan by P.I. Thakur, at 11-30 a.m., on 8-7-1984, in the presence of panch Fakruddin, one Lungi of green colour having blood stains and one Baniyan of Blush Company also having blood stains, were seized under the seizure memo (Ex. 112). It was urged that the identity of the blood-stained articles, i.e., the Baniyan (Art. 107 and the Lungi (Art. 106), was not established. There was no blood detected on Lungi (Art. 106), by the Chemical Analyser as per his report (Ex. 259). The Baniyan was described in the seizure-memo (Ex. 112) as an old white Baniyan having a lable bearing writing 'BLUSH' R. No. 320782, B, Super Firm 85'. In the requisition (Ex. 258), Article D-5 has been described as a white Baniyan bearing the word "BLUSH" and it was marked as Exhibit-32 by the Chemical Analyser. But the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the mention in the List of Articles (Ex. 4) at serial No. 107, which gave the Chemical Analyser's number as Ex. No. 32, was wrong. From the requisition (Ex. 258), it is clear that Article D-5, which was the Baniyan seized from Baswan was numbered as Exbibit 70 and on Exhibit 70, no blood was detected. In view of the report of the Chemical Analyser, therefore, the recovery of the clothes (Arts. 106 and 107) from Baswan's house, would not tend to incriminate him. 73. The next recovery at the instance of accused No. 6-Baswan was on 20.7.1984. In view of the report of the Chemical Analyser, therefore, the recovery of the clothes (Arts. 106 and 107) from Baswan's house, would not tend to incriminate him. 73. The next recovery at the instance of accused No. 6-Baswan was on 20.7.1984. According to P.I. Thakur (P.W.56), Baswan, while in police-custody, said in the presence of the panchas Munawar Ali and Pundlik Gaurkar that he had hidden some money below a bridge under a cement pipe and that he would take out the amount and produce it. A memorandum (Ex. 67) was drawn up accordingly. Panch Munawwar Ali (P.W. 15) stated that this statement was made by Basawan in his presence when he was called to the Police Station at Chandrapur and they were taken in a jeep over a distance of about 7 or 8 miles to a bridge where the vehicle was stopped at the instance of Baswan. There were four pipes under the bridge. Baswan went aside one of those pipes and brought out the amount which was wrapped in a Lungi and had been kept below a stone and that bundle contained Rs. 1160/- in currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-, 50/- and 20/- and they had become wet. These notes were dried and counted and seized under the panchanama (Ex. 68). P.I. Thakur stated that this place was about a Kilo Metre away from the Seed Centre in the direction of Ballarshah. We must take note of the fact that this recovery was made about a fort-night after the incident and at a place where one may not expect to hide the money. Though we find the evidence of P.I. Thakur and Fakruddin to be otherwise credible in respect of the statement attributed to Baswan, considering the unlikely hood of the amount being concealed at such a place, the long gap between the dacoity and the recovery of the amount and the condition in which the money was found, it would be hazardous to accept the circumstance of the recovery of money at the instance of Baswan (accused No.6) as a piece of evidence corroborating the version given by Ramcharan (P.W. 49). Munawwar Ali (P.W. 15) stated that the pipes on the sides were a little high and, therefore, water was not flowing through them, and it had rained heavily between 3.7.1984 and 20.7.1984. Munawwar Ali (P.W. 15) stated that the pipes on the sides were a little high and, therefore, water was not flowing through them, and it had rained heavily between 3.7.1984 and 20.7.1984. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept the recovery of Rs. 1,160/- as a circumstance which would tend to corroborate the account given by Ramchaan, the approver, and in our opinion, it is insufficient to connect accused No. 6-Baswan independently with the 74. Apart from this, Baswan stated that he was not present when the incident occurred because he was working at the Colliery from 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 pm., on 3.7.1984. In support of this plea, he examined Trilokinath Dube (D.W. 2-Ex.322) who was working at the Ballarpur Coal Mines as an Assistant Surveyor. According to him, Baswan was on surface duty upto 6.30 p.m., on 3.7.1984, because he had actually seen him working till then, and his version was supported by the Attendance Register (Ex. 325). He also stated that he had allotted duty to Baswan in the second-shift on July 3, and this was entered in the Register (Ex. 324). The duty allotted to Baswan was of watching the material which was kept on the surface. We examined the Register (Ex. 324) and though we see no reason to disbelieve the version of Trilokinath regarding Baswan presenting himself at the beginning of the shift at 3.00 pm., and the entries made in the Register, it is not possible for us to accept the account given by Trilokinath regarding the continued presence of Baswan at the place from 3.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. When cross-examined further, he admitted that he was deposing from memory that Baswan had come at 3.00 p.m. but he was unable to tell the names of other workers who had come for the second shift on 1st and 2nd July and could not give the names and number of the workers who had come for work in the second-shift on 3rd July or even thereafter. He stated that he had met Baswan once or twice-during the month preceding the date of his evidence in Court, but he could not tell the date when he met Baswan. It was, therefore, not unlikely that Baswan could have absented from work because he was given surface duty after having reported at 3.00 p.m., on 3.7.1984. He stated that he had met Baswan once or twice-during the month preceding the date of his evidence in Court, but he could not tell the date when he met Baswan. It was, therefore, not unlikely that Baswan could have absented from work because he was given surface duty after having reported at 3.00 p.m., on 3.7.1984. Having considered the evidence Of Trilokinath, we do not think that it gives a lie to the version of Ramcharan (P.W. 49), the approver, that Baswan was present, and this being the nature of Trilokinath's evidence, it would not reflect on the credibility of Ramcharan. However, for the reasons we have already stated, we would not accept the mere recovery of the amount at the instance of Baswan as a circumstance, by itself, tending to show his involvement in the dacoity independent of the evidence of Ramcbaran. 75. That brings us to the evidence relating to Pratap (accused No.8) and this is in respect of the recovery made on 19.7.1984 by P.I. Thakur in consequence of Pratap's statement before him and panch Ashfaq (P.W. 16). P.I. Thakur stated that Pratap stated before him that he would produce the currency notes which he had concealed under a tamarind tree in the jungle and this statement was recorded at Exhibit-78, and Pratap then led them to the west of Seed Centre upto a distance of 500 paces. He took them to the place where there were tamarind trees and from a heap under the middle tamarind tree, he took out a bundle containing currency notes of the value of Rs. 977 and that amount was seized under the seizure-memo (Ex. 80). It is obvious that no positive role has been ascribed by Ramcharan, (P.W. 49) to Pratap in the incident besides stating that he stood by his side when the other six persons went to the construction site. According to Ramcharan, Pratap bad returned with him to Ballarshah. What we have said in respect of the evidence against accused No. 6-Baswan would apply substantially to the place from which the currency notes came to be recovered and the woeful inadequacy of the fact of recovery of unidentifiable currency notes of Rs. 977/- from a desolate place nearly a fortnight after the incident and we would not consider this recovery as a piece of evidence corroborating independently the version given by Ramcharan (P. W. 49). 76. 977/- from a desolate place nearly a fortnight after the incident and we would not consider this recovery as a piece of evidence corroborating independently the version given by Ramcharan (P. W. 49). 76. With regard to Ramkishor (accused No.9), the evidence of P.I. Thakur (P.W. 56) and panch Fakruddin (P.W. 27) shows that in his house search, a stick, 2'-10" in length, was seized from his house on 8.7.1984, under the panchanama (Ex. 113), but that stick was not sent to the Chemical Analyser and was not identified in Court. Nothing, therefore, turns on the finding of this stick in the house search of accused No. 9- Ramkishor. The other piece of evidence against him is the recovery of Rs. 553/- kept in a bundle under a Neem tree near the Silk Centre, in consequence of the information given by him which was recorded at Exhibit-77. The amount was recovered under the panchallama (Ex. 78). The recovery of this undeniable property also about a fortnight after the incident, cannot be regarded as a circumstance showing independently the involvement of accused No. 9-Ramkishor in the incident of dacoity. 77. Having considered the other pieces of evidence against the appellants, we find that there is no adequate corroboration in material particulars to the evidence of the approver. Ramcharan (P.W. 49), with regard to the role played by accused No. 6-Baswan, accused No. 8-Pratap and accused No. 9-Ramkishor. But with regard to the accused No.2 Rampal, there is voluminous evidence in the shape of the identifiable articles which were stolen in the dacoity, viz., the wrist-watch (Art. 114) on 8.4.194, the gold-ring bearing the description 'R-S' (Art. 121) on 21.7.1984 and the stick (Art. 147) which was found at his instance on 9.7.1984. The role played by accused No.3 Fulchand gets ample corroboration and his connection with the offence of dacoity is brought out by the envelope (Art. 127) and Baniyan (Art. 113). Accused No.4-Babulal's connection is established by the stick (Art. 110) which was stained with blood-group 0' and currency notes of Rs. 329/- which were found with him on 8.7.1984 Sheoprasad's involvement is established by the recovery of the wristwatch, H.M.T. Kranti, (Article 131) and Rs. Accused No.4-Babulal's connection is established by the stick (Art. 110) which was stained with blood-group 0' and currency notes of Rs. 329/- which were found with him on 8.7.1984 Sheoprasad's involvement is established by the recovery of the wristwatch, H.M.T. Kranti, (Article 131) and Rs. 360/- on 19.7.1984, while accused No.7 Shamlal's complicity independently of the evidence of Ramcharan can be gathered from the under-wear having blood-stains of Group 'B' (Art. 81) which was seized on 8.7.1984, and the recovery of Rs. 720/- on 20.7.1984. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the charges under various heads as framed against accused No.2 Rampal, accused No.3 Fulchand, No.4 Babulal, No.5 Sheoprasad and accused No.7 Shamlal have been established beyond reasonable doubt. 78. The position with regard to the effect of the approver's evidence and corroboration necessary, was indicated in Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra17, in that, according to Section 133 of the Evidence Act, which is a rule of law, an accomplice is competent to give evidence and according to section 114 thereof, which is a rule of practice, it is almost always unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. Therefore, though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the Courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. There should be corroboration of the approver in material particulars and qua each accused. 79. In Balwant Kaur v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (supra), it has been pointed out that an accomplice, by long legal tradition, is a notoriously infamous witness, one who being particeps criminis, purchases his immunity by accepting to accuse others. In indictments, particularly of serious crimes, the counsel of caution and the rule of prudence enjoin that it is unsafe to rest a conviction on the evidence of a guilty partner in a crime without independent corroboration on the material particulars. Judicial experience was, thus, elevated to a rule of law. "It is a practice which deserves all the reverence of law". However, the nature and extent of the corroboration must necessarily vary with the nature and circumstances of each case. Enunciation of any general rule, valid for all occasions, is not practicable. 80. Judicial experience was, thus, elevated to a rule of law. "It is a practice which deserves all the reverence of law". However, the nature and extent of the corroboration must necessarily vary with the nature and circumstances of each case. Enunciation of any general rule, valid for all occasions, is not practicable. 80. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on Chandan v. State of Rajasthan (supra) to the effect that it is established as a rule of prudence that conviction can be based on the testimony of accomplice only if it is thought reliable as a whole being intrinsically natural and reliable and if it is corroborated by independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, connecting the accused with the crime. But there the evidence of the witness (approver himself) as a rule did not appear to be natural and did not inspire confidence, and there was no corroboration at all from any other independent circumstance and source of evidence and so the conviction of the appellants could not, there, be maintained. In the present case, as we have indicated the evidence of approver Ramcharan (P.W. 49) was natural and was consistent with probabilities, and we find that in respect of the five persons, there was reliable, independent and sufficient corroboration to connect them with the offence of dacoity. We, therefore, affirm the conviction of accused No 2 Rampal, No.3 Fulchand No.4 Babulal, No.5 Sheoprasad and No.7 Shamlal. In respect of accused No.6 Baswan, No.8 Pratap and No.9 Ramkishor, we find that sufficient corroboration to lend assurance to their complicity is no forthcoming and, therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 81. In respect of the sentence, Shri Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, urged only that the sentence of death imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not be confirmed as this is not one of those rarest of rare cases where a capital sentence is called for. According to him, the sentence of imprisonment for life would be adequate. Nothing was said with respect to the sentences imposed on other counts. 82. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Shri Sirpurkar. According to him, the sentence of imprisonment for life would be adequate. Nothing was said with respect to the sentences imposed on other counts. 82. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Shri Sirpurkar. He urged that accused No.2 Rampal has three sons, (two of whom are students) and a daughter; accused No.3 Fulchand has to take care of his aged parents and is a 12th Class student and his father is a labourer and that he belongs to the N.C.C.; accused No.4 Babulal has a five-year old son and an unmarried sister; while accused No.7 Shamlal is the head of the family and the whole family depends on him; and accused No.5 Sheoprasad is only a 22 years old boy. In his submission, even if the evidence were to be believed, there was no intention to kill, and though knives are said to have been taken, they were not used, but injuries came to be caused by means of sticks. 83. We have deliberately set out in detail the injuries sustained by each of the victims who met with his death and the multiple injuries which were found on vital parts of the body which resulted in their deaths as well as the serious injuries which were noticed on the three persons who fortunately survived, and the evidence of the Medical Officer showed that had the injuries been little deeper, they would have died. What were these victims, after all? One of them, who died, was an unsuspecting watchman at the construction site of the Seed Centre and the other, at that place, was also a watchman, who were only doing their duty of guarding the material to the construction site, when the miscreants attacked them, tied them with the Dhoti of one of them, assaulted them with sticks, dragged them over a long distance and threw them in a pit by the side of the road. Nothing had to be gamed by killing the one and injuring the other to such an extent, though it was evident that they had no money. All that they could have done was to offer resistance in the culprits' carrying out their plan of looting the way-farers. The crime, so far as these two persons are concerned, was extremely diabolical and we have not been able to see any reason or justification for the harm caused to them. All that they could have done was to offer resistance in the culprits' carrying out their plan of looting the way-farers. The crime, so far as these two persons are concerned, was extremely diabolical and we have not been able to see any reason or justification for the harm caused to them. The other four persons, who passed by the road and became the victims of the offence, were also unsuspecting wayfarers passing by State Highway. Those, who met with their deaths on the Highway, were also of young ages and the motive behind the crime was personal gain to the appellants. It must be noted that the incident occurred on a State Highway at about 7.30 p.m., when people, who had been out for their business, were returning to their homes. Even though resistance was offered by some of the valiant persons on the road who were being assaulted, the appellants did not dither from their determination and overcame the resistance and gave multiple blows both to those who offered resistance as well as to those who did not. Their plaints for mercy fell on deaf ears and they were done to death. Having regard to the victims of the offence, we do not think that there is any justification for us to impose the lesser sentence. The roads must remain safe for the people using the roads, and if crimes, such as these, were to be dealt with in a lenient manner, it will be only an unpardonable instance of showing indulgence where it is not deserved. 84. Our attention is drawn to the tests laid down in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab18, where their Lordships have indicated five points to which the attention of the Courts should he directed while considering the question of death sentence. The first relates to manner of commission of murder and refers to cases where the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. The second is about the motive for commission of murder. One of the motives indicate for imposing death penalty is, when the murder is committed for the sake of money or reward. The third is the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime. The second is about the motive for commission of murder. One of the motives indicate for imposing death penalty is, when the murder is committed for the sake of money or reward. The third is the anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime. The fourth is magnitude of crime, including an instance of multiple murders and, lastly, the personality of the victim of murder. We have taken into consideration all these guide-lines and we are satisfied that there is something extremely uncommon in the crime with which we are dealing, which would render the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and would call for a death sentence and, in the present case, we have no other alternative, but to confirm the sentence of death, even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances, which have been placed before us, in favour of the offenders. 85. In Ashrafilal v. State of U.P.19, it was pointed out that failure to impose a death sentence in such grave cases where it is a crime against the society particularly in cases of murders committed with extreme brutality will bring to naught the sentence of death provided by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and it is the duty of the Court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. 86. Shri Sirpurkar drew our attention to Suresh v. State of U.P.20 where the sole eyewitness was a five-year old child of the deceased and the accused was a servant of the family of the deceased, and he was just about 21 years of age and, probably, a sudden impulse of sex or theft made him momentarily insensible. The consideration, which weighed with the Supreme Court in favour of reducing the death penalty was the circumstance that the accused was in jail for ten long years. That was obviously a decision on the facts of that case and the principles laid down in other cases to which we have referred about imposition of death sentence were never in dispute. That was obviously a decision on the facts of that case and the principles laid down in other cases to which we have referred about imposition of death sentence were never in dispute. In Munawar Harun Shah v. State of Maharashtra21, having regard to the magnitude, the gruesome nature of the offences and tile manner of perpetrating them in all the facts and circumstances, it was held that the case there fell within the rare of the rarest category and the extreme penalty of death was held to be called for. It was observed that any leniency shown in the matter of sentence would not only be misplaced but will certainly give rise to and foster a feeling of private revenge among the people leading to destabilisation of the society. 87. In view of these principles and the facts of the present case, we have no other alternative but to confirm the death penalty imposed on accused No.2 Rampal s/o. Pituwa Rahidas, No. 3-Fulchand s/o Shamlal Rahidas, No. 4-Babulal s/o. Shamlal Rahidas, No. 5 Sheoprasad alias Dhunda s/o. Chunbatiya Rahidas and No. 7-Shamlal s/o. Bharosa Rahidas. The reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to them is accepted, their convictions and sentences are confirmed and their appeals are dismissed. We, however, reject the reference insofar as it relates to accused No. 6-Baswan s/o. Dhurfekan Rahidas, No. 8-Pratap s/o. Sukhanandan Rahidas and No. 9-Ramkishor s/o. Chunkawana Rahidas, allow their appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in any other offence. Reference partly accepted. 1. AIR 1955 SC 101. 2. AIR 1971 SC 363 . 3. (1979) 3 SCC 319 . 4. 9 6 SCC (Suppl ) 733. 5. AIR 1976 SC 9115. 6. (1983) 77 Indian Cases 890. 7. (1988) 1 SCC 696 . 8. (1988) 1 SCC 1 . 9. AIR 1982 SC 1227 . 10. AIR 1975 SC 1320 . 11. AIR 1914 SC 775. 12 AIR 1974 SC 117 . 13. AIR 1966 SC 405 . 14. AIR 1977 SC 1712 . 15. AIR 1972 SC 975 . 16. AIR 1959 SC 1199 . 17. AIR 1963 SC 599 . 18. AIR 1983 SC 957 19. AIR 1987 SC 1721 . 20. AIR 1981 SC 1122 . 21. AIR 1983 SC 585 .