JUDGMENT 1. - All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated, 8.11.1989 of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 147/87 whereby the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Bihari alias Ram Singh alias Mardan Singh alias Ram Lal son of Kishna, Nathu alias Nathu Lal son of Bihari, Jai Singh alias Rodiya son of Mangi Lal, Narain alias Daini son of Dalla and Durga son of Dalu:- Under section 396 Indian Penal Code, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Bihari alias Ram Singh alias Mardan Singh - Under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. Hazari son of Bheru Banjara and Bana alias Amar Singh - Under section 412 Indian Penal Code to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences of the appellant Bihari were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case have been detailed out extensively in the impugned judgment of the trial Court which is under challenge in this appeal and they indicate that in the night intervening 3/4.6.1987, an armed dacoity was committed in the house of Ram Lal Banjara in village Devpuria. It is alleged that 8-9 miscreants entered in the house and two of them were armed with guns. In the house, Ram Lal Banjara and his wife Smt. Pari were there. Ram Lal ran away seeing the Dacoity and came back to his house after some time. The miscreants, then, made gun fires on him causing his death on the spot. Smt. Pari wife of Ram Lal was caught and tied with a rope and she was assaulted by the miscreants for making disclosure about the ornaments and cash, It was a moon-lit night and the miscreants were also having torches which they used at the time of committing dacoity. Thereafter, the miscreants ran away towards the jungle with valuable ornaments and currency notes. Thereafter, the miscreants ran away towards the jungle with valuable ornaments and currency notes. An oral report of the incident was made by PW 8 - Bihari S/o Chatra who was having his house in the same vicinity, on the same night at 1 a.m. at Police Station, Mothpur. On this report, crime No. 33/87 was registered Under Sections 395, 398, 397 Indian Penal Code. 3. After registration of the case, investigation commenced and inquest report (Ex. P/1) of the dead body of Ram Lal was prepared on 4.6.1987. The autopsy on dead body was conducted by the Medical Officer, Raj Kishore Saxena vide post-mortem report, Ex. P/19. The police also prepared site plan, Ex. P/4 and `Fard Mauka' Ex. P/5. The empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested and at their instance and on their information gold and silver ornaments were recovered. Identification parade was also arranged for identification of the accused by the witnesses. After completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against 7 accused appellants Under Sections 395, 396, 412 Indian Penal Code and Under section 3/27 of the Arms Act before the concerned Magistrate. After committal of the case, they were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges on 7.1.1986. Charge Under section 396 Indian Penal Code was framed against all the appellants. In addition to this, charge Under Section 412 Indian Penal Code against appellant Hazari and charge Under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act against appellant Bihari were also framed. 4. During trial, prosecution examined 27 witnesses for seeking conviction of the accused. The plea of the accused was of denial and alibi. Two witnesses, namely, Narain and Hazari son of Dhanna were examined in defence. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 5. D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 430/89 has been jointly filed by the appellants, Jai Singh, Bihari, Nathu, Narain and Durga through Jail. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 449/89 is a represented appeal by the appellant Durga. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 5. D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 430/89 has been jointly filed by the appellants, Jai Singh, Bihari, Nathu, Narain and Durga through Jail. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 449/89 is a represented appeal by the appellant Durga. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 450/89 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 33/90 have been filed by the appellants Hazari and Bana alias Amar Singh, while D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 213/90 has been filed by the State against Bana alias Amar Singh and Hazari seeking their conviction Under section 396 Indian Penal Code. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the accused persons did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that an armed dacoity was committed in the house of Ram Lal Banjara in the night intervening 3/4.6.1987. He also did not dispute that in the process of commission of dacoity, Ram Lal Banjara was shot to death and that PW 4 Smt. Pari wife of Ram Lal and Hari Singh son of Bihari aged 7 years also sustained injuries, as shown in injury reports Ex. P/22 and P/21 respectively. However, it was seriously contended that the appellants either participated in commission of the dacoity or were receivers of the looted articles. Assailing the testimony of Smt. Pari, it was contended that accused were shown to her and she could not identify the miscreants during the course of commission of dacoity as she must be in frightened and terrorised state of mind. Learned counsel also contended that the dacoity was committed in night and in absence of any source of light, the miscreants could not have been identified by Smt. Pari. Learned counsel also challenged the recovery of various ornaments etc. at the instance and on information's of the accused persons. 7. We minutely examined the entire record and the statements of the witnesses in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel. We also minutely read over the judgment under challenge in this appeal and the various findings and reasoning's given by the learned trial Court. 8. From the evidence on record, it appears that at the time of commission of dacoity in the house of Ram Lal, besides Ram Lal, his wife PW 4 Smt. Pari and PW 1 Kumari Kanchan Bai were there. 8. From the evidence on record, it appears that at the time of commission of dacoity in the house of Ram Lal, besides Ram Lal, his wife PW 4 Smt. Pari and PW 1 Kumari Kanchan Bai were there. Ram Lal died due to pellete injuries sustained by him from a gun fire made by one of the miscreants. Hence, PW 4 Smt. Pari is the only witness to see the occurrence as PW 1 Kumari Kanchan Bai was a girl of 9-10 years at the time of incident. The learned trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of Smt. Pari and her evidence is corroborated by earlier identification parade of the accused persons and the medical evidence. She has given a graphic picture of the whole occurrence as to how the miscreants came in the house and that she was tied by a rope by the miscreants. That two of the miscreants were having guns and one of them took away their gun while others were having lathis. She identified the appellant Bihari and Narain to be armed with guns and stated that Bihari made a gun fire on her husband who died on the spot. She also identified the appellant, Jai Singh who had taken their gun and also made a gun fire towards her husband. She identified the appellants Nathu Singh, Durga and Hazari to have tied her with a rope. She has also given the details of the ornaments which were taken away by the miscreants and identified the ornaments Articles 1 to 21 to belong to her which were looted by the miscreants. This witness was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the accused persons. In her cross-examination, she denied that her eyes were closed from a cloth by the miscreants or that the miscreants were having covered faces. She also denied that the accused were shown by the police before their identification parades were held. After going through her statement minutely we find testimony of PW 4 to be quite straight forward, firm and reliable. The presence of this witness at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed as her presence was quite natural and further the presence of injuries on her person proves that she was tied by the miscreants and that she sustained injuries at the hands of the miscreants. The presence of this witness at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed as her presence was quite natural and further the presence of injuries on her person proves that she was tied by the miscreants and that she sustained injuries at the hands of the miscreants. This witness has also described particular act of each of the appellants. She has stated that there was moon-lit night and that the miscreants were having torches which were flashed by them at the time of incident. From her statement, it transpires that she came in close contact and proximity of miscreants at the time of incident. She was also subjected to man handling and she was a victim of the incident. Inasmuch as, she saw her husband being shot to death. She had seen from her eyes that gold and silver ornaments were taken away by the miscreants. She therefore, was in a position to identify the miscreants. This witness had also identified the appellants, Bihari, Nathu Singh, Jai Singh, Narain and Durga in the earlier identification parades which were conducted by PW 26 - Harphool Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra. Ex. P/8 is identification memo of appellant Bihari alias Ram Singh which was conducted on 13.8.1987. Ex. P/9 is identification memo of Nathu Singh; Ex. P10 is identification memo of Jai Singh, Ex. P/11 is identification memo of Bana alias Amar Singh; Ex. P/12 is identification memo of Narain alias Daini and Ex. P/13 is identification memo of Durga alias Dalu. From these identification memos and the statement of PW 26, Shri Harphool Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra, it is proved that PW 4, Smt. Pari had identified the accused persons except the accused Bana alias Amar Singh. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the identification parades conducted during investigation. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused persons were shown to the witness Smt. Pari. Smt. Pari has expressly denied this very fact that she could not identify the accused Bana alias Amar Singh in the parade shows that the accused were not shown to her, otherwise, there was no reason not to have identified him. The learned trial Court, in our view, rightly relied upon the evidence of PW 4 - Smt. Pari. 9. Smt. Pari has expressly denied this very fact that she could not identify the accused Bana alias Amar Singh in the parade shows that the accused were not shown to her, otherwise, there was no reason not to have identified him. The learned trial Court, in our view, rightly relied upon the evidence of PW 4 - Smt. Pari. 9. Another important link to connect the accused with the crime is the recovery of gold and silver ornaments at their instance and on their information. Appellant Bihari was arrested on 11.8.1987 vide arrest memo Ex. P/50. On his information, one silver Gajra, two pieces of silver Kara, Awla, Neori and Kanakta were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P/25 and P/30. Gun was also recovered on his information and at his instance vide recovery memo Ex. P/40. 10. Similarly, appellant-Nathu Singh was arrested on 11.8.1987 vide arrest memo Ex. P/51. On his information and at his instance one double barrel gun (Jodla) belonging to the complainant party was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P/39- A. Then vide recovery memo Ex. P/29 one `Tatta' of gold, one `Banjari' of gold and one `Hathphool' of gold were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P/29 on his information Ex. P/61. 11. Jai Singh, appellant, was arrested on 11.8.1987 vide arrest memo Ex. P/52 and on his information, Ex. P/63, silver ornaments were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P/27. 12. Durga, appellant, was arrested on 16.8.1987 and on his information and at his instance silver `Chhoga' `Bindi-wala' was recovered vide Ex. P/32. Bana alias Amar Singh was arrested on 11.8.1987 vide arrest memo Ex. P/53 and on his information Ex. P/64 one silver `Kanakti' and one silver `Tagri' were recovered vide recovery memo, Ex. P/28. All these articles were duly identified by Smt. Parti (PW 4) during identification parades as well as in the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in identification of the articles by the witness Pari and we do not find any ground to reject this evidence of recovery of articles which is duly proved by the Motbir witnesses and the Investigating Officer, PW 25, Shiv Bhagwan Godara. 13. The learned trial Court therefore, rightly convicted the appellants. The appellant, Bana alias Amar Singh was not convicted Under section 396 Indian Penal Code as he was not identified in the identification parade by PW 4 Smt. Pari. 13. The learned trial Court therefore, rightly convicted the appellants. The appellant, Bana alias Amar Singh was not convicted Under section 396 Indian Penal Code as he was not identified in the identification parade by PW 4 Smt. Pari. However, he was convicted Under section 412 Indian Penal Code as looted articles were recovered from his possession. Similarly, appellant Hazari was not convicted Under section 396 Indian Penal Code, because, he was known to the witnesses, but still his name was not mentioned in the FIR, he was therefore, convicted Under Section 412 Indian Penal Code only. After giving our deep and thoughtful consideration, we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellants was rightly made by the learned trial Court and its finding does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 14. The next question for consideration remains about the sentence to be awarded. Under Section 396 Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Court has awarded imprisonment for life. However, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that imprisonment for a term of ten years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the appellants convicted Under Section 396 Indian Penal Code will meet the ends of justice. Similarly, a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- will meet the ends of justice for the offence Under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. 15. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the appellants, Bihari alias Ram Singh alias Mardan Singh alias Ram Lal son of Kishna, Nathu alias Nathu Lal son of Bihari, Jai Singh alias Rudiya son of Magi Lal, Durga son of Dalu and Narain alias Daini S/o Dalla Under Section 396 Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, their sentence is modified to the effect that they will suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The conviction and sentence of appellant Bihari Under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act as awarded by the trial Court are maintained. However, the substantive sentences awarded to him shall run concurrently. 15,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The conviction and sentence of appellant Bihari Under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act as awarded by the trial Court are maintained. However, the substantive sentences awarded to him shall run concurrently. Similarly, the conviction of the appellant, Hazari S/o Bhairu and Bhana alias Amar Singh Under section 412 Indian Penal Code is maintained and their sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 5 years to 4 years R.I. The sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine as awarded by the trial Court are however, maintained. The entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to PW 4, Smt. Pari widow of Ram Lal Banjara for the loss and sufferings caused to her.The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******