JUDGMENT Mr. V.P. Goel, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.1979 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, Shri K.P. Sharma, in S.T. No. 613 of 1976, convicting the appellant Rajendra under Section 396 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. According to the prosecution case as disclosed front the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh at Police Station, Chandausi, District Moradabad on 28.7.1974 at4.00a.m. in the night between 27/28.7.1974 at about mid night, the complainant along with his family members, were sleeping inside the chhappar of his house. There was light of the lantern in the house, the wife and children of the complainant informant were sleeping inside the Kotha and there was light of Chirag inside the said Kotha. Liladhar was sleeping in the Sehan situate towards the north of the sa id house. At the same time 15-20 dacoits entered in the house and started plundering. On hearing the noise, the first informant and other family members woke up and raised an alarm. According to the prosecution case, six of the dacoits were armed with guns, four with Tamancha and the rest with lathis and Dandas. Two of the dacoits took position on the roof of the complainant's house. On hearing the gun-shot fire and hue and cry raised by the family members of the complainant, the witnesses Bhim Sen (P.W. 4) Happu (P.W. 5), Anwar, Lately, Liladhar, Nandki, Man Singh, Narain and other persons of the village reached close to the scene of the incident, out of whom, Bhim Sen (P.W. 4) and Anwar were possessed of their licensed guns. They also had electric torches with them, which they flashed at the time of this incident. In the course of dacoity the dacoits fired gun shots. Bhim Sen(P.W.4)and Anwar also fired gun shots in reply. The dacoits used to come out and go into the house of the complainant at the time of committing the dacoity and they ransacked and looted the complainant's property for about half an hour. While this dacoity was being committed, Happu (P.W. 5) had pulled down the Chappar of the complainant which lay towards south west corner of the complainant's flour mill and set the same on fire, which produced sufficient light. A shot was fired by one of the dacoits, which had hit Happu (P.W. 5). While this dacoity was being committed, Happu (P.W. 5) had pulled down the Chappar of the complainant which lay towards south west corner of the complainant's flour mill and set the same on fire, which produced sufficient light. A shot was fired by one of the dacoits, which had hit Happu (P.W. 5). Ramesh had challenged the dacoits and he was shot by one of the dacoitos. In the same tra nsaction the dacoits committed the dacoity at the house of Buddhi as well and all the dacits ran away along with booty. In this incident Jai Pal Singh (P.W. 3) Ramesh Happu, Tika Ram, Smt. Genda Devi, Smi. Ram Devi, Liladhar, Rain Bharosey Katori and Buddhi had received injuries at the hands of the dacoits. Copy of the F.I.R. is Ext. Ka-1. The name of Rajendra and two others were mentioned in the First Information Report as [bey were amongst the dacoits and were known to the complainant and the witnesses. After the occurrence, complainant Jai Pal Singh (P.W. 3) had dictated the report (Ext. Ka.1) of this incident to Tika Ram (P.W. 6) in the village abadi itself and thereafter the same was handed over to head moharrir Hans Raj Singh (P.W. 1) at Police Station Chandausi on 28.7.74 at 4 a.m. P.W. 1 Hansari Singh prepared the chick report (Ex. Ka-2) on the basis of written report (Ex. Ka-1) and reference of the same was also made in the G.D. The injured persons were sent to the Chandausi hospital for medical examination. Ramesh, however, had succumbed to his injuries on 28.7.74 at 4.40a.m. in the said hospital. The information of death of Ramesh was sent from the hospital to Police Station Chandausi and on the basis of the said memo, the crime was converted from one punishable under Section 395/397 I.P.C. to one punishable under Section 3961.P.C. 3. Dr. G.N. Tandon had medically examined P.W. 5 Happu, Buddhi, Ram Bharosey, Smt. Ganga Del and Laltt Singh on 28.7.74 from 4.30 a.m. to 6.25 a.m. Their injury reports are Ext. Ka-22 to Ext. Ka-26. Dr. B.R. Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh on 29.7.74 at 9.40 a.m. had found the following ante-mortem injuries. 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 3= cm.x1cm. on the front abdomen, 1 cm. below epigestrum. Marginwere lacerated and inverted. Blackening, scorching, charring present around the wound. Ka-22 to Ext. Ka-26. Dr. B.R. Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh on 29.7.74 at 9.40 a.m. had found the following ante-mortem injuries. 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 3= cm.x1cm. on the front abdomen, 1 cm. below epigestrum. Marginwere lacerated and inverted. Blackening, scorching, charring present around the wound. The wound was abdominal cavity deep and loop & small intestines were lying out. 4. In the opinion of Dr. B.R. Singh, the death of Ramesh was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of this injury received by this deceased at his abdomen. The post-mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-21. After registration of the case, the investigation of this case was entrusted to Dharamvir (P.W. 7). He had interrogated the complainant at the police station itself and sent the injured for medical examination. He returned back alongwith P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh to the scene of the incident, prepared site-plan (Ext. Ka-12) and also seen the Chirag (Ext. 1), lantern (Ext. 2), which he found in the house and the same were found in working order. These Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 were given in the custody of the complainant vide Supurdaginama (Ext. Ka-5). He had also seen the electric torches of Jai Pal Singh (P.W. 7) and Anwar and found them in order. The same were given in the supurdagi of their owners. He also inspected the torches of Bhim Sen (P.W.4)and Angan Lal and found them in order and handed them over in the supurdagi of their owners vide memo (Ext. Ka-9). He also took in possession sample of ash, recovered bloodstained and plain earth from the spot where the deceased had received fatal gun-shot wound and also took into possession the blood stained and simple earth from the house of Happu (P.W. 5) The S.I. Ruddoosul Hasan had interrogated Happu (P.W. 5) and other witnesses and after concluding the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) against the accused appellant. 5. C.J.M. Moradabad committed the accused appellant to the Court of Sessions. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W. I Hans Raj Singh Head Moharrir, P.W. 2 Ram Saran Sharma, P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh, P.W. 4 Bhim Sen, P.W. 5 Happu, P.W. 6 Tika Ram a nd P.W. 7 S.I. Dharamvir Singh. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W. I Hans Raj Singh Head Moharrir, P.W. 2 Ram Saran Sharma, P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh, P.W. 4 Bhim Sen, P.W. 5 Happu, P.W. 6 Tika Ram a nd P.W. 7 S.I. Dharamvir Singh. Besides above, the prosecution tendered in evidence the inquest report (Ext. Ka15) Challan Nash (Ext. Ka-16). letter to the C.M.O. Moradabad (Ext. Ka-17) another letter addressed to the C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-18) sample seal (Ext. Ka-19), photo nash (Ext. Ka-20) postmortem report of Ramesh (Ext. Ka-21) and injury-reports of Happu, Buddhi, Rant Bharosey, Ganga Dei and Lallu Singh (Ext. Ka22 to Ext. Ka-26). 6. The accused appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied his participation in dacoity anrt attributed his implication due to enmity. He however, did not produce any oral evidence in his defence. He had filed a certified copy of a chargesheet (Ext. Kha1) of case No. 2246/97 in case crime No. 267 under section 457 I.P.C. of P.S. Chandausi. In this charge-sheet, Karan Singh of village Ugiya happen to be the accused person. Out of the prosecution witnesses, the testimony of Hans Raj Singh (P. W.1), Head Moharrir Rant Saran Lal Sharma (P.W. 2), Tika Ram (P.W. 6) and Inspector Dharaut Vir Singh (P.W. 7) is of a formal nature and the case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Ja ipa l Singh (P.W. 3) Bhim Sen (P.W. 4) and Happu (P.W. 5) who bad given an eye witness account of the present occurrence of dacoity. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record, believed the prosecution version and had placed implicit reliance on the eyewitness account of Jaipal Singh (P.W. 3), Bhim Sen (P.W. 4) and Happu (P.W. 5) and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also scrutinised the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that since on the same evidence, other accused persons have been acquitted, the appellant could not be convicted on the same evidence. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also scrutinised the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that since on the same evidence, other accused persons have been acquitted, the appellant could not be convicted on the same evidence. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the following decision (1) Darshan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 66) (2) State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo & Another (AIR 1991 S.C.2247)and 1992 A.L.J. Vol.II, page 950. 9. We have carefully gone through the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant and in our opinion, the decisions cited above have no bearing in the fact of the present case. The appellant in the present case has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 396 I.P.C. and he was one of the dacoits, present at the time of commission of dacoity and has recognised by the witnesses while committing dacoity. His name was mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses. He attributed his false implication in the case due to enmity. The eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing has been brought out in their cross examination so as to discredit their testimony. A suggestion was made to these witnesses by the Defence Councils and the same was denied by the prosecution witnesses. Neither any documentary nor any oral evidence was produced on behalf of the defence to substantiate that the witnesses were inimical to him. 10. The factum of dacoity was not seriously challenged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the dacoity was committed in the night between 27/28.7.74 in the house of P.W. 3 Jaipal Singh and at the house of Buddhi Singh, in which a large number of persons received injuries and Ramesh lost his life. Property was also looted in the said dacoity. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the dacoity was committed in the night between 27/28.7.74 in the house of P.W. 3 Jaipal Singh and at the house of Buddhi Singh, in which a large number of persons received injuries and Ramesh lost his life. Property was also looted in the said dacoity. P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh, P.W. 4 Bhim Sen and Happu (P.W. 5) have deposed before the Court that a dacoitywas committed in the night between 27/28.7.74 in which dacoits used fire-anus and Bhim Sen and Agrasen also used firearm and they had recognised the appellant who was known to them from before in the light of lantern, chirag, electric torches light and the light coming out from the burning of Chhappar. According to the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh and the Doctor, who examined the injuries of the injured persons, that Ramesh died due to gun-shot injuries and the injuries could be caused at the time between the night of 27/28.7.74. Similar is the opinion of the Doctor with regard to the injuries of other injured witnesses. In view of the post mortem examination report and other injury reports of the injured persons and the consistent statements of the three eye-witnesses, leaves no room for doubt that a dacoity was committed at the houses of Jaipal Singh and Buddhi Singh at the time and place stated above. 11. P.W.3Jai Pal Singh is an injured witness, who lodged the F.I.R. of the incident and witnessed the entire incident of dacoity. He narrated the prosecution case and supported the prosecution version. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has come out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his testimony. A suggestion was made to him that he was inimical to Rajender. This suggestion was denied by him. We have sercutised the statement of P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh and find him to be a reliable witness. P.W. 4 Bhim Sen is also an injured witness, whose presence at the sence of occurrence cannot be doubted a nd he has supported the prosecution case. This suggestion was denied by him. We have sercutised the statement of P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh and find him to be a reliable witness. P.W. 4 Bhim Sen is also an injured witness, whose presence at the sence of occurrence cannot be doubted a nd he has supported the prosecution case. He has deposed that he came to the scene of occurrence after hearing gun-shot fire and witnessed the entire incident and recognised Rajender as one of dacoits in the light of torches and in the light produced from the burning of phoos. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. A suggestion was made to him that he had nominated the appellant due to enmity but the same was denied by him. We, thus, find no infirmity in the statement of P.W. 4 Bhim Sen. P.W. 5 Happu is a close neighbour to the complainant as would appear from Ext. Ka-12 the site-plan and the presence of this witness at the scene of the incident cannot be doubted. Secondly, this witness had received a large number of injuries at about the same time when the present incident is said to have taken place. He has stated before the Court that he had recognised Rajender as one of the dacoits. His testimony inspires confidence. However, the learned Counsel forthe appellants argued that no sufficient light was available at the scene of incident so as to enable the witnesses to recognise Rajender and his nomination in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of witnesses was on account of enmity. 12. We have scrutinised the statement of the witnesses carefully and we do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. All the witnesses have deposed that there was light of torches, lantern, dibia and the light emanating from burning of Chhappar, in which they recognised Rajender as one of the dacoits. The name of the appellant Rajender found place in the F.I.R. as one of the dacoits. In view of the consistent statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the lightat the scene of the incident, we hold that there was sufficient light at the scene of incident. The name of the appellant Rajender found place in the F.I.R. as one of the dacoits. In view of the consistent statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the lightat the scene of the incident, we hold that there was sufficient light at the scene of incident. We, therefore see no reason to disturb the findings recorded by the trial Judge with regard to sufficiency of the light at the scene of incident. 13. The testimony of these three eye-witnesses about accused appellant Rajender being amongst the dacoits find due corroboration by the allegation made in the written report, lodged by P.W. 3 Jai Pal Singh, in which Rajender has been duly named as being one of the dacoits. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended before us that accused Rajender being known to the witnesses since before this incident, he could not have taken part in the dacoity without taking precaution of concealing his identity. We have scrutinised the evidence of the eye-witnesses keeping in mind the submission made by the learned Counsel and we find that the argument has no force. There is no enmity between the complainant and the eyewitnesses. The suggestion has been made from the side of the defence that the complainant and the other witnesses are inimical to him but this has been denied by the witnesses. The witnesses are, therefore, wholly independent and had no bias against the accused appellant to implicate him in such a heinous crime and it is, thus, unbelievable as to why the complainant side would implicate this accused in the crime if he was not amongst the dacoits. The learned Sessions Judge also had taken into consideration the conduct of the accused after the dacoity. The accused had absconded after the dacoity and this conduct of the accused is a circumstance against him under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 14. For the reasons given above we do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 396 I.P.C. is maintained. 15. Learned Counsel, however, urged that at the time of the incident Rajender appellant was aged about 25 years. No specific role has been assigned to him either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses. 15. Learned Counsel, however, urged that at the time of the incident Rajender appellant was aged about 25 years. No specific role has been assigned to him either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses. The prosecution has only succeeded in providing that he was one of the dacoits, who participated in the dacoity in which Ramesh lost his life and other witnesses received injuries and the sentence awarded to him erred towards serverity and liable to be reduced. We. rind sufficient force in this submission and in our opinion the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant under Section 396 I.P.C. is reduced from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 16. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained under Section 396 I.P.C. but his sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment to ten years. 17. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him.