JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-7-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellants Kalu alias Chhotu, Lakhi, Birjia, Amar Singh and Ram Swaroop for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 397 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellants Kalu, Lakhi and Birjia were, also, convicted for the offence under Section 460 1PC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Section 396 read with 397 and Section 460 IPC for committing dacoity in the house of one Ramjas Bishnoi in his Dhani situated in 2. MS.R., Police Station, Anoopgarh, and, also, committed the murder of Ramjas Bishnoi. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 18/19th January, 1978, the accused-appellants along with PW 1 Prithvi Singh went to the Dhani of Ramjas Bishnoi at about 1.30 a.m. on a jeep. Accused-appellant Ram Swaroop was deputed to keep a watch on the outer-side of the house and accused-appellant Amar Singh was deputed to keep a watch on the servant's quarter, who bolted the doors of the servant's quarters from out-side. Accused-appellants Kalu, Lakhi and Birjia and PW 1 Prithvi Singh reached near the house and found the door of the outer-room dosed. Accused Birjia entered into the room through a gap of one and a half feet in between the lower part of the door and the floor-level and opened the door of the outer- room. Thereafter the accused gave beatings to Ramjas, who was sleeping in the room and he, after receiving the injuries, became unconscious. Thereafter the three accused, viz., Kalu, Lakhi and Birjia proceeded towards the inner-room in the Dhani and knocked on the door. The door was not opened by the inmates and these accused, after breaking the door, entered into the room and asked PW 9 Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh, who were inside the room to show the where-abouts of the money and other valuable articles. The door was not opened by the inmates and these accused, after breaking the door, entered into the room and asked PW 9 Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh, who were inside the room to show the where-abouts of the money and other valuable articles. During this period, PW 1 Prithvi Singh was left to keep a watch on Ramjas Bishnoi as well as on the outer- room. On the refusal of the aforesaid three witnesses to show the where-abouts of the money and valuable articles, they were given beatings by these accused persons and in the light of two torches, which the accused were carrying, they went inside the store-room, opened the boxes and took-out the money and valuables etc. and went away. PW 9 Chando received as many as nine injuries while PW 10 Manohari received one bullet injury and PW 14 Nihal Singh, also, received one injury on the lower part of left jaw. Ramjas Bishnoi, also, received eight injuries and became unconscious. He was, later on, taken to P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, but he could not be cured and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 28-1-1978. Though the accused were expecting a heavy amount in the Dhani but they could be able to take-away only Rs. 400/-to Rs. 500/-, one gold Chain (Dora), one gold Tabiz having the symbol of Hanumanji, one pair of Paijeb, one wrist watch, one time-piece and certain clothes. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Anoopgarh, in the same night at about 330 a.m. by PW 14 Nihal Singh. PW 4 Gurudeo Singh, who was the Sin of Ramjas Bishnoi, accompanied Nihal Singh to the Police Station. Accused Kalu, Ram Swaroop, Birjia, Lakhi, Amar Singh and PW 1 Prithvi Singh were arrested by PW 19 Ratan Singh - the Investigating Officer -on 5-10-1978. A request for their identification was made by PW 19 Ratan Singh by way of moving an application before PW 8 Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, on 6-10-1978, who fixed the date for identification of the accused on 8-10-1978 in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, and sent the accused to judicial custody and issued notices to the witnesses to remain present in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, on 8-10-1978 for identification of the accused. Radhey Shyam Gupta, the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, on 6-10-1978, who fixed the date for identification of the accused on 8-10-1978 in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, and sent the accused to judicial custody and issued notices to the witnesses to remain present in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, on 8-10-1978 for identification of the accused. The three accused, viz., Kalu, Birjia and Lakhi were correctly identified by PW 9 Smt. Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh. The articles were recovered from the possession of the accused and the identification of these articles were, also, arranged by PW 23 Sukha Ram Tehsildar and the witnesses correctly identified these articles. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced twenty-five witnesses during the trial. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in support of their case, they produced DW 1 Mota Ram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants as stated above, by his judgment dated 29-7-1982. It is against this judgment that the accused-appellants have preferred these two appeals. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case and there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. The conviction of the accused-appellants has been based merely on the statement of PW 1 Prithvi Singh - an approver in the case - who has falsely deposed against the appellants in order to save his own skin. It has, also, been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no sufficient light available in the room, in which the inmates of the house could have seen the accused-persons, particularly in the circumstances when they were being given beatings by the accused. Moreover, the identification took place after nine months of the incident and it was not possible for the witnesses to carry into their memory the faces of the perpetrators of the crime. It has, also, been argued that the accused-appellants were arrested on 5- 10-1978, and they were shown to the witnesses on 6-10-1978, and the identification took place on 8-10-1978 and as the accused were shown to the witnesses, the identification of the accused- appellants is, therefore, unreliable. It has, also, been argued that the accused-appellants were arrested on 5- 10-1978, and they were shown to the witnesses on 6-10-1978, and the identification took place on 8-10-1978 and as the accused were shown to the witnesses, the identification of the accused- appellants is, therefore, unreliable. It has, also, been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case does not find support from the medical evidence and a doubt arises against the prosecution for not sending the pistol for examination. It has, also, been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the site plan, the place where the witnesses were standing, has not been shown and, therefore, the presence of witnesses at the scene of the occurrence becomes doubtful and the accused-appellants, therefore, deserve to be acquitted. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that accused Kalu alias Chhotu was in Central Jail, Ambala, on the date of the incident, as is dear from the judgment EX. D. 8 and the release order EX. D. 7. EX. D. 8 is the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, convicting and sentencing accused- appellant Chhotu S/o Sadhu Singh and grand-son of Gopal Singh, and EX. D. 7 the release order dated 1-2-1978. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the jurisdiction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, and has submitted that accused-appellant Kalu and accused Chhotu (who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal) are two different persons as is dear from the residential address of accused Chhotu Singh shown in the judgment in Karnak case and the residential address of accused- appellant Kalu shown in the instant case. It has, also, been stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused-appellant Kalu has not produced any evidence in support of his contention that he is the same accused Chhotu who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnali and was lodged in the jail and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, was right in holding that accused- appellant Kalu and accused Chhotu (who was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal) are two different persons. 4. 4. Before considering the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we would like to first see the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has produced PW 1 Prithvi Singh - the approver - who was with the accused-appellants during the whole incident of dacoity and was a member of the dacoit-party and participated in the crime. This evidence of the approver is sought to be corroborated from the evidence of PW 9 Smt. Chando W/o deceased Ramjas Bishnoi, PW 10 Manohari D/o deceased Ramjas Bishnoi and PW 14 Nihal Singh S/o deceased Ramjas Bishnoi, who were inside the house in the fateful night and had seen the accused in the light of the two torches and saw the accused ransacking the house and taking-away the money and valuables from the house. These witnesses have identified the accused correctly during the identification parade held prior to the trial and, also, identified the accused during the trial. These witnesses have, also, identified the various articles recovered from the possession of the accused. They, also, identified these articles during the identification parade conducted by PW 23 Sukha Ram - the Tehsildar. This evidence is further sought to be corroborated by the evidence of the Motbir witness PW 2 Ram Kishan, who was a., Motbir witness to Furd-Surat-Haal-Lash EX. P. 1 and the Panchnama-A-Lash Ex.P. 2. PW 2 Indrajeet was a witness to the recovery of Jayee vide Ex.P. 3, the Gadda, quilt and other items of bed recovered vide Ex.P. 4 and the bolt (Kunda). PW 7 Mool Chand was the witness to the recovery Memos EX. P.6, EX. P. 7, EX. P.9, EX. P. 11, EX. P. 12, EX.P. 13 and EX.P. 14. Though this witness has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and was declared hostile but in the cross-examination made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures on all these documents. PW 12 Bakhta Ram and PW 17 Mani Rajn are the Motbir witnesses for the recoveries made from accused Lakhi and Amar Singh vide EX.P. 23 and Ex. P. 24. These witnesses have, also, turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of these two witnesses do not help the prosecution as they have denied the recoveries of the articles in their presence as well as their signatures on these recovery memos. P. 24. These witnesses have, also, turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of these two witnesses do not help the prosecution as they have denied the recoveries of the articles in their presence as well as their signatures on these recovery memos. PW 21 Hari Ram is, also, a Motbir witness for the recovery of the pistol and cartridges from accused Kalu vide EX.P. 41. He is, also, a witness to the site plan EX. P. 42, the place from where the pistol was recovered. This witness has, also, not supported the prosecution case during the trial and was declared hostile and nothing turns-out from the evidence of this witness. The prosecution has, also, produced PW 4 Gurudeo Singh - the Ski of deceased Ramjas - who was living in the servant's quarter, which was bolted from the out-side when the incident took-place and when after hearing the cries he got-up and tried to come-out, he found the door ofthe quarter bolted from out- side and, therefore, he could not come out-side the quarter and ables to do so only when after running away the accused, the door was opened by PW 14 Nihal Singh. PW 5 Bhanwar is the witness who went in the jeep alongwith the accused and remained in the jeep while the accused party went in the Dhani and committed the dacoity and murder of Ramjas. PW 6 Hardyal Singh and PW 13 Gurucharan Singh - the owner of the jeep - are the other witnesses. PW 6 Hardyal Singh has stated that the jeep was borrowed by Prithvi Singh from him on 17-1-1978, and was returned after a week. PW 13 Gurucharan Singh has stated that the jeep was taken into the police custody after the incident. PW 8 Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, R.JS., was the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, before whom the application EX. P. 15 was moved by PW 19 Ratan Singh for conducting he identification parade of accused Kalu, Birjia, Ram Swaroop and Lakhi. Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, on this application, fixed the date of identification on 8-10-1978 in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, and directed for sending the accused to judicial custody and, also, ordered for the issuance of notices to the witnesses to remain present on 8- 10-1978 in the Sub-Jail for the identification of the accused. Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, on this application, fixed the date of identification on 8-10-1978 in the Sub-Jail, Raisinghnagar, and directed for sending the accused to judicial custody and, also, ordered for the issuance of notices to the witnesses to remain present on 8- 10-1978 in the Sub-Jail for the identification of the accused. PW 9 Smt. Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh correctly identified Birjia, Kalu and Lakhi. PW 11 Dr. Hanuman Singh was the Medical Jurist at P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, who attended PW 10 Manohari and took-out the bullet from her body by way of an operation. PW 24 Dr. L.K. Purohit was the In charge, Medical Mobile Unit, Anoopgarh, who, on 19-1-1978, at about 5.30 a.m. examined PW 9 Smt. Chando and found nine injuries on her person. He, also, examined the injuries on the person of Manohari, who was having one punctured wound. He, also, examined Ramjas who was having eight injuries and was unconscious when he was brought to him. He, also, examined PW 14 Nihal Singh, who was having an injury below left lower jaw. Ramjas Bishnoi died on 28-1-1978 and Dr. Purohit conducted the postmortem on his dead body.PW 18 Om Prakash, one gold-smith, has been produced by the prosecution, who manufactured gold chain (Dora), the Tabiz having the symbol of Hanumanji and a pair of Paijeb for Ramjas Bishnoi. PW 20 Kartar Singh is a tracer (Khoji). His evidence is, also, of no worth because he has simply stated that he saw the foot-prints of six persons - three inside the house and three out-side the house. Then, there remains the evidence of the Police Witnesses. PW 15 is Bhajan Lal AS.I. Police, who registered the FIR EX. P. 17, prepared the site plan Ex. P. 28, Inspection Note Ex.P. 30, conducted the initial investigation upto 13-3-1978, and thereafter he was transferred and he again joined the investigation and helped Ratan Singh PW 19, to.whom the investigation was entrusted with effect from 12-9-1978. PW 19 Ratan Singh was the Inspector, C.I.D. (Crime Branch), who was entrusted with the investigation on 12-9-1978. He completed the investigation, arrested the accused, arranged for identification of the articles, made recoveries of various articles on the information and at the instance of the accused, got the identification of the accused arranged and after completing the investigation presented the challan against the accused. He completed the investigation, arrested the accused, arranged for identification of the articles, made recoveries of various articles on the information and at the instance of the accused, got the identification of the accused arranged and after completing the investigation presented the challan against the accused. PW 22 Het Ram was, also, entrusted with the investigation for sometime and he visited the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, on 25-1-1978, made inquiry from the doctor attending Ramjas and found that Ramjas was unconscious and was not in a fit state to give statement and, therefore, he could not record the statement of any witness but lie took into possession one bottle containing one bullet which was extracted from the body of PW 10 Manohari. PW 16 Birbal Ram was the Head Constable Polite and was the In charge of the Malkhana at Police Station,. Anoopgarh, in whose custody all the sealed articles remained and he has deposed that all these articles remained in the same sealed condition in which they were deposited in the Malkhana till they were sent for F.S.L. Examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 25 Arjun Singh is the Constable in C.I.D. Crime Branch, who took these articles in the sealed condition for F.S.L. examination to Jaipur and handed them over at the aforesaid Laboratory. PW 23 Mr. Sukha Ram, Tahsildar, was the person who conducted the identification of the articles and before whom PW 9 Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh correctly identified the gold chain (Dora), the Tabiz, the pair of Paijeb, time piece, Ghagra, Odna, shirt, wrist watch, another Ghagra, shirt of Chhint and Odna. The gold chain, Panjeb and gold Tabiz were correctly identified by PW 18 Om Prakash - the goldsmith also. This is all the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The evidence of defence witriess, i.e., DW 1 Mota Ram, is of no help to the defence because he has only stated that he knows Prithvi SA) Puran, who was not fined by the Panchayat at any time. 5. This is all the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The evidence of defence witriess, i.e., DW 1 Mota Ram, is of no help to the defence because he has only stated that he knows Prithvi SA) Puran, who was not fined by the Panchayat at any time. 5. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the statement of PW 1 Prithvi Singh - the approver in the case - and the statements of the eye witnesses, viz., PW 9 Smt. Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh, as well as from the identification of the accused by these three witnesses and the identification of the various articles recovered from the accused on their information and at their instance. 6. The first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the approver is not a reliable witness and he has falsely implicated the appellants with the crime and his evidence does not inspire confidence. We have gone-through the statement of PW 1 Prithvi Singh. He has stated that the accused was living in village 2 KNJ for the last 2 to 21/2 years and he knows them well and all these accused are related to each other. About 11/2 to 2 years before, accused Kalu told him that he wanted to buy a jeep, upon which he informed him that Hardayal Singh has a jeep No. RRK 1794, which he wanted to sell, upon which accused Kalu asked him to bring the jeep so that they may go to meet their relative and would have a try of the jeep. He had arranged Akhand Paath of Guru Grunth Sahib and as such the jeep was brought on 17-1-78. The Bhog ceremony of Akhand Paath held on 18-1-78 at about 4.00 p.m. Accused Kalu and Lakhi, also, participated in the Bhog ceremony. At that time accused Kalu told him that he had in his mind one target for committing dacoity wherefrom they could get a booty of one to 15 Lacs and asked him to bring the jeep and the rest of the part will be performed by them. He consented to that proposal. In the night of 18-1-78, at about 8.00/8.30 p.m., he, alongwith Bhanwra and accused Brijia, Kalu, Lakhi, Ram Swaroop and Amar Singh left the village and proceeded towards the Dhani of Ramjas Bishnoi in the jeep. He consented to that proposal. In the night of 18-1-78, at about 8.00/8.30 p.m., he, alongwith Bhanwra and accused Brijia, Kalu, Lakhi, Ram Swaroop and Amar Singh left the village and proceeded towards the Dhani of Ramjas Bishnoi in the jeep. Accused Lakhi was carrying a Sela and Ram Swaroop was carrying a Lathi. One iron rod of 2 to 21/2 feet was, also, lying in the jeep. The accused had two torches with them. On the front seat, accused Kalu and Bhanwra sat while on the rear seats, the other accused and the witness sat. They readied near Anoopgarh on the Eastern side at about 12 to 12.30 in the night, left the jeep there and put-off the Kheslas. Accused Kalu was, also, carrying one pistol and bandolur. Accused Lakhi thereafter took the accused party towards the Western side of the Dhani of Ramjas Bishnoi. Bhanwra remained in the jeep and when they reached near the Dhani, accused Amar Singh was deputed to keep a watch on the servant's quarter, who bolted the door of the same from out-side. Thereafter this witness and accused Kalu, Birjia, Ram Swaroop and Lakhi proceeded towards the Eastern gate of the house where accused Kalu deputed accused Ram Swaroop to keep a watch at the outer-side of the house and PW 1 Prithvi Singh and accused Kalu, Lakhi and Birjia proceeded towards the outer door of the house, which was found closed from inside. Accused Birjia entered into the room from the space of 11/2 feet in between the floor and the lower portion of the gate and opened the door. All these four persons thereafter entered into the room. He took-up the lathi which was lying there. Accused Birjia took-up the Jayee. Accused Kalu was armed with a Sabbal. They put-on the torches. At that time the voice came from the room as to who were there; upon which accused Kalu, Lakhi and Birjia asked the persons inside the house to let them known where the money and other valuables are lying. Accused Kalu with the Sabbal, Lakhi with the Sela and Birjia with the Jayee inflicted injuries on the personal of of Ramjas Bishnoi. Ramjas cried and tried to get-up from the cot but fell down. He saw the accused persons inflicting the injuries from the door and did not participate in the crime. Accused Kalu with the Sabbal, Lakhi with the Sela and Birjia with the Jayee inflicted injuries on the personal of of Ramjas Bishnoi. Ramjas cried and tried to get-up from the cot but fell down. He saw the accused persons inflicting the injuries from the door and did not participate in the crime. All these three accused thereafter came out-side and deputed him to keep a watch over Ramjas and again went inside the house, bolted the door of the servant's quarter from out-side and thereafter they proceeded towards the room where ladies and the children of Choudhary were sleeping and knocked at the door. Sometime thereafter the noise of crying and weeping were heard by him. He also, heard the noise of a fire. After that, accused Kalu, Birjia and Lakhia came out- side the room. Accused Kalu, at that time, was having a pistol with him and was, also, carrying a bundle of wrapped cloth (Path). Accused Kalu put that Path in the jeep and they came to their houses. They threw the Jayee in the field and put-on the Khesla on their faces and reached the village 2 KNJ at 6.00 a.m. He went to his Dhani in the jeep. In the evening he was called by accused Kalu and Kalu showed him one silver Paijeb, one gold chain and one Tabiz, certain clothes, one time-piece, one wrist watch and Rs. 450/- in cash and informed him that this was the whole material which they got in dacoity. He was paid Rs. 200/-as expenses for the jeep and the time-piece as his share in the loot. All the other accused, also, got their share.In the cross- examination he has admitted that except these persons, no other person accompanied them and Kalu showed these articles to him at his house. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he was not, in any way, connected with these accused - neither prior to this incident nor after the incident and he never ever accompanied accused Kalu etc. in such crimes. He has, also, admitted that he was not having friendly relations with these accused. He has, also, stated that accused Lakhia and Kalu were carrying the torches. He has, also, admitted that he did not enter into the room. He has, also, admitted that after accused Kalu and others went inside the room, he did not come out-side the house. He has, also, admitted that he was not having friendly relations with these accused. He has, also, stated that accused Lakhia and Kalu were carrying the torches. He has, also, admitted that he did not enter into the room. He has, also, admitted that after accused Kalu and others went inside the room, he did not come out-side the house. He has, also, admitted the writing of letters Ex.D. 5 and Ex. D. 6 to one Raghuveer Singh. So far as these letters Ex.D. 5 and Ex.D. 6 are concerned, they have got no such relevance to the present case as nothing transpire from these two letters. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that these two letters show the ignorance of this witness to the facts of the present case. After perusal of these two letters Ex.D. 5 and Ex. D. 6, we are of the opinion that these letters do not throw any light on the incident : neither these letters show the ignorance of this witness from the incident nor any positive knowledge of the case. Both these letters are silent regarding the incident. This witness neither participated in the looting nor in inflicting any injury to any person nor making any inquiry from the inmates of the house regarding the whereabouts of the valuables. He has merely claimed himself to be a silent spectator of all the events of the crime. He has nowhere stated that he participate in the crime at any stage except the fact that he accompanied the accused party in the jeep which he borrowed from Gurudayal Singh (PW 13) from his village and reached to the Dhani of Ramjas Bishnoi, went inside the Dhani with the accused, remained standing near the door of the outer-room and though he was armed with a Lathi but he did not participate in causing injury to any person or attacking the injured nor did he participate in the looting and he even did not enter into the second room, wherefrom the property was looted by the other three accused. He attempted to suggest that he did nothing except to accompany the other accused. This witness had no friendly relations with the other accused. He attempted to suggest that he did nothing except to accompany the other accused. This witness had no friendly relations with the other accused. Taking him with them by the accused and his non-participation in the incident either of looting or causing injuries to the inmates of the house, make the version given by this witness unnatural. The accused had no intimacy with him before the incident and according to him, he was taken into confidence only on 18-1-1978, i.e., sometime prior to the incident and he agreed to their proposal to join the accused. The version given by this witness, therefore, does not appear to be a natural version. Though an approver is a competent witness and if his evidence finds corroboration on material particulars then the conviction of the accused can be based on his testimony and it is not necessary that corroboration is sought on each and every point. As a rule of caution, there must be some corroboration from some independent source to be evidence of the approver because there is some amount of suspicion which always finds in the evidence of an accomplish. But when the evidence of the approver does not inspire confidence then no conviction can be based on the testimony of such a witness. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 1 Prithvi Singh. 7. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the identification of the accused were not possible in the light of two torches and the identification parade was held after a lapse of about nine months and it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to remember the faces of the accused for such a long period which they had seen only for sometime and, therefore, the identification of the accused appears to be false. We have considered this aspect of the case, also. The accused were carrying two torches. They inflicted injuries to the injured persons. We have considered this aspect of the case, also. The accused were carrying two torches. They inflicted injuries to the injured persons. They searched the boxes and in such a state when the accused were inflicting injuries, the witnesses could not have identified the accused persons, particularly when the light of the torches were not falling on the faces of the accused but they were pointed either on the witnesses or on the boxes where the valuables were being searched and, therefore, it was not possible for these witnesses to have identified these accused and when they could not have seen the faces of the accused then the identification carried after a lapse of nine months is of no avail to the prosecution as it was a fake identification. 8. The next point, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution case does not find support from the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show how the prosecution case does not find support from the medical evidence ? PW 1 Prithvi Singh has stated that Ramjas was being given beatings by these accused by Sela, Sabbal and Jayee. PW 24 Dr. Laxmi Kant Purohit, who examined the injuries on the person of Ramjas, found nine injuries on his person. Injuries No. 4, 6, 7 and 8 were caused by blunt weapons and the remaining injuries were opined to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. This medical evidence, thus, fully supports the ocular testimony of the witnesses. The medical evidence, also, supports the receiving of injuries by PW 9 Smt. Chando, PW 10 Manohari and PW 14 Nihal Singh. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, is, therefore, devoid of any force and deserves to be ignored. 9. The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the pistol and cartridges were not sent for F.S.L. Examination and in the site plan the place where the witnesses were standing, has not been shown. So far as not sending the pistol and cartridges for FS.L. Examination is concerned, the whole of the prosecution case-cannot be thrown away on this count and at the best it can be said that the pistol recovered from accused-appellant Kalu is not connected with the crime. So far as not sending the pistol and cartridges for FS.L. Examination is concerned, the whole of the prosecution case-cannot be thrown away on this count and at the best it can be said that the pistol recovered from accused-appellant Kalu is not connected with the crime. The appellants cannot be acquitted only on failure on the part of the prosecution in sending the pistol and the cartridges if there is other evidence to support the prosecution case. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of any force. So far as the non-mentioning of the place where the witnesses were standing, is concerned, there is no such rule which requires the Investigating Officer to show the place where the witnesses were present. Moreover, in the site plan as well as in the Inspection Note, it has been clearly stated that the complainant, his mother and sister were sleeping in the room marked with letter 'B', in which the accused entered and inflicted the injuries and committed the dacoity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the place where the witnesses were present, has not been shown in the site plan. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, devoid of any force. 10. Then comes the recoveries, which have been made from the possession of the accused. These recoveries were made on the information and at the instance of the accused. The motbir witnesses have not supported the prosecution case regarding the recoveries and they have turned hostile. The recoveries made at the instance of the accused, therefore, do not inspire confidence. Moreover, such type of articles are commonly used by the villagers in the area. Even PW 18 Om Prakash - the goldsmith - has stated that the pair of Paijeb is machine-made and there are no identification marks on the gold chain (Dora) or the gold Tabiz or the silver pair of Paijeb. So far as the recoveries of the clothes are concerned, they are, also, of common pattern which are worn by the villagers in the locality. The recoveries of these articles, made from the accused, therefore, do not inspire confidence and when the recoveries are doubtful, the identification of these articles by the witnesses are of no avail to the prosecution. 11. There is one another aspect of the case. The recoveries of these articles, made from the accused, therefore, do not inspire confidence and when the recoveries are doubtful, the identification of these articles by the witnesses are of no avail to the prosecution. 11. There is one another aspect of the case. The accused have placed on record the judgment dated 4-12-1975 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal, convicting and sentencing accused Chhotu. The parentage of Kalu and that of accused Chhotu in Karnal's case is the same. Though there is a difference of residence but the specimen thumb impression of accused- appellant Kalu were taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jodhpur as per the directions of this Court and they were sent for comparison of the thumb impressions of accused Chhotu taken in the Hisar Jail, where he was undergoing the sentence after being transferred from the Central Jail, Ambala, and the report of the Finger Print Expert shows that the thumb impression marked as X-1 of accused Clihotu is similar to that of the specimen thumb impression of accused Kalu, though the other thumb impression marked as a X-2 does not tally with the specimen thumb impression of Chhotu. The similarity of the thumb impression of accused Kalu with accused Chhotu in Karnal's case raises a suspicion regarding the presence of accused Kalu alias Chhotu as the place of the incident in the fateful night. When a suspicion arises regarding the participation of accused- appellant Kalu in the crime then the prosecution story with respect to other accused-appellants, also, raises a suspicion regarding the participation of other accused-appellant in the crime. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. 12. In the result, the appeals, filed by the accused-appellants, are allowed. The judgment dated 29-7-1982, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, is set-aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Appellants Lakhia and Birjia are in Jail. They may be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. So far as the other accused-appellants are concerned, they are on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******