Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated June 13, 1980, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No. 163 of 1979 of that Court, whereby he has acquitted the named accused Rang Bahadur Singh, Mangala Giri and Prem Singh (respondents 1 to 3) on the charge under Section 396, IPC. 2. The prosecution case arose out of a written FIR Exhibit Ka-31, lodged by Smt. Bhuiani Devi, P.W. 4 at P.S. Chunar Distt. Mirzapur on 2-8-78 at 6.15 a.m. The distance of the police station is 6 miles. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 1/2-8-78. She has alleged that in the night in between 1/2-8-78 at about 11 p.m. the incident occurred. At that time she was sleeping with her husband Rama Shankar (deceased) alongwith her child on the roof of her new house. Her father-in-law Cha Mangan his brother Somghar (both deceased) were sleeping in the varandha nearby the old house, on their cots. A lantern was burning. Her small child used to urinate and pass stool quite often in the night. Therefore, a lantern was throughout kept burning in order to safeguard his interest. Her husband as usual was sleeping with a torch kept near by at his cot. At about 11 p.m. about 14-15 dacoits about 4-5 carrying double barrel guns 1-2 carrying single barrel guns and other were armed with lathies, Gandasa etc. entered her old house flashing torches. They came near Mannan and Somghar aforesaid. They were asking them to get the doors opened. But they did not agree. They identified the culprits in the light of torches and lanterns. There fore, they started shouting that dacoits had come to their house. On hearing them, the complainant and her husband also got awakened and started crying. Being awakened with the cries of the deceased, husband, Mannan and Sombhar also started raising alarms. Ram Lakhan, a distant father-in-law of the complainant burnt pual stacked near the house of the complainant and that created flood light and the movements of the dacoits could be easily seen and the culprits were identified in this added light of burning Puals. Two dacoits over powered him (Ram Lakhan) and made him sit nearby. Hearing the alarm, Kalika (deceased), Lal Chand, Kalloo, Chandrika, Ramji, Keshav, Mannan, Bechan, Dhanno Bechu, Gayasu, Lalji etc. Two dacoits over powered him (Ram Lakhan) and made him sit nearby. Hearing the alarm, Kalika (deceased), Lal Chand, Kalloo, Chandrika, Ramji, Keshav, Mannan, Bechan, Dhanno Bechu, Gayasu, Lalji etc. of the village came there running flashing their torches and wielding their lathies. They started challenging the dacoits. Accused Ran Bahadur Singh, Baba Singh and Prem Singh, respondents were thoroughly identified by Mannan and Sorabhar etc. aforesaid. The unknown dacoits were also identified in this light. Mannan and Sombhar as well as the complainant's husband started naming the accused aforesaid. They requested the known dacoits to loot as they willed, but not to cause any physical injury to anybody else. The three named accused aforesaid, who were armed with double barrel guns said that these persons had identified them. Therefore, it would not be safe to keep them as alive and thus saying, they murdered these two persons Mannan and Sombhar on the spot. The villagers were assembled and started hurling stones towards the dacoits. The complainant's husband told the named culprits that he had identified them alright and in case an opportunity was available and he remained alive (sic), he would take a revenge certainly. There upon the dacoits broke open the houses with the help of Henga (a heavy wodden log used for levelling the field). 4-5 dacoits entered the old house and started ransacking the same. 4-5 dacoits were keeping a vigil from outside the house and preventing the witness from coming closure to them. Some of them were collecting the looted articles. They were coming out and going inside repeatedly and this thing continued for half an hour. Several other persons of the village assembled there. The named three dacoits alongwith two others moved at the roof, where the complainant's husband was standing and shouting and they shot him dead on the spot. The pressure of the village people went on increasing and they started chasing the dacoits. In order to ward off the witnesses, dacoits were also firing occasionally, as a result of which, Kalika Yadav, a neighbour of the complainant, who was leading the witnesses towards chasing the accused, was shot dead by the accused. Lal Chand, Kalloo, Chandrika, Ramji, Kesho, Mannan, Bechan and Chanoo had received injuries from the pellets. Shyamu received lathi injuries. Some of the dacoits were wearing Banyan and Nekars. Some others were dressed in Kurta and Dhoti. Lal Chand, Kalloo, Chandrika, Ramji, Kesho, Mannan, Bechan and Chanoo had received injuries from the pellets. Shyamu received lathi injuries. Some of the dacoits were wearing Banyan and Nekars. Some others were dressed in Kurta and Dhoti. Some were dressed in Bush shirts and Full Pants. Some of them were of average heights and some of them were quite small. They were speaking in Khari Boli in Hindi. Some of them were speaking local language. Some others were of black skins, some others were fairer. Due to fear, the dacoits could not be chased for long and the dacoits ran away after collecting the booty from the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the FIR contains the details of the ornaments and other articles looted by the dacoits. On the basis of the written FIR lodged by the complainant, Chik FIR was prepared by H.C. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha, P.W. 8 at 6.15 a.m. (Exhibit Ka-31). I.O./S.O. Sri Kedar Nath Singh, P.W. 11 was also present at the time of registration of the FIR, which bears his signature also. The case was registered by Sri Sinha and G.D. entry Exhibit Ka-32, was prepared. He also sent the special report at about 7.30 a.m. through Constable Kalpanath Yadav and entry to that effect was made in the G.D. Exhibit Ka-33. He also informed the higher authorities through wireless set about the occurrence and note to that effect was made in the G.D. 3. The I.O. Sri Kedar Nath Singh took the investigation in his hands immediately and he rushed to the spot alongwith police force. There he reached at about 8.30 a.m. He recorded the statements of the complainant Smt. Bhulani, P.W. 4 and Ram Lakhan Yadav. He also learnt that Constable Girdhari Yadav had taken 8 injured persons to Varanasi for medical treatment and investigation. He planted the inform ants to locate the accused. Ram Lakhan and Shyamu were also injured who had not been sent to Varanasi. He referred these persons alongwith Chitthi-Majrubis for medical examination. At about 9.10 a.m. the then S.P. Sri Manager Pandey and Circle Officer Sri Y.N. Singh, had also arrived on the spot. The I.O. recorded the statement of Shyamu also. Panchyatnamas were prepared under his supervision, by S.I. Ran Bijai Bahadur Singh P.W. 2. He referred these persons alongwith Chitthi-Majrubis for medical examination. At about 9.10 a.m. the then S.P. Sri Manager Pandey and Circle Officer Sri Y.N. Singh, had also arrived on the spot. The I.O. recorded the statement of Shyamu also. Panchyatnamas were prepared under his supervision, by S.I. Ran Bijai Bahadur Singh P.W. 2. He further interrogated Changu Lal and Chandrika on the spot and made an inspection of the spot with the help of Smt. Bhulani Devi and other witnesses of fact (Exhibit Ka-37). He collected the blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot, where the dead-bodies were lying and kept them under separate containers and sealed them and memo Exhibit Ka-38 was prepared by him. He examined the torches of the witnesses. All of them were in working order. After preparing Supurdiginama torches were handed over to the owners. He examined the Henga, broken locks, lanterns, broken doors, boxes and the remaining goods left by the dacoits. He prepared Supurdiginama for the same (Exhibit Ka-23). He collected 14 cartridges and ash and kept them in separate containers after sealing them on the spot and prepared memo (Exhibit Ka-24). At about 6.30 p.m. D.I.R. Varanasi Range arrived on the spot. Thereafter, he interrogated the witnesses Bechan, Lalloo, Budh Ram Yadav etc. On 4-8-78, he raided the houses of Prem Singh, Rang Bahadur and Baba @ Mangala Gonsai, but they were not available at their houses. The post-mortem reports were received by him. He copied them. On 5-8-78 he collected the pellets embedded in the wall of the complainant and prepared a memo for that. The blood-stained clothes of the injured persons were received. They were sealed and memos were prepared. He took action 'under Section 82, Cr. C.P., on 12-8-78 against the absconding accused. There after, he went on medical leave. 4. Thereafter, P.W. 12, S.I. Ram Pal Yadav took over as S.O. Chunar on 30-8-78. On 19-9-78, he copied the postmortem report of Lal Chand in case diary. He interrogated the witnesses like Kalloo, Ramji, Keshav, P.W. 3 Mannan, Jawahar and Lalji. On 29-12-78, he submitted a charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-48 against the accused respondents only. P.W. 2 Ran Vijay Bahadur, S.I. had accompanied the I.P., Sri K.N. Singh on 2-8-78 on the spot and he prepared the Panchayatnama of the deceased Rama Shankar and Somar only. The relevant documents have been proved by him. On 29-12-78, he submitted a charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-48 against the accused respondents only. P.W. 2 Ran Vijay Bahadur, S.I. had accompanied the I.P., Sri K.N. Singh on 2-8-78 on the spot and he prepared the Panchayatnama of the deceased Rama Shankar and Somar only. The relevant documents have been proved by him. The dead-bodies were entrusted to Constable Girdhar, P.W. 10 for postmortem examination in duly sealed condition. 5. The prosecution has proved the following evidence to prove its case. 6. P.W. 4 Smt. Bhulani is the complainant. She has narrated the entire prosecution story contained in the FIR and has given a detailed description regarding the incident as seen by her. P.W. 3 is Keshav, an injured eye-wit ness. He has named the accused as active participants in the crime. He had his house nearby and reached the spot with torch and lathi and saw the incident with his own eyes. There was light of lantern, torches of the witnesses, burning puals etc. Other witnesses like Lal Chand, Kamta and Chandrika and Ram Shankar had also torches with them. He identified the three named accused as they were known from before. The deceits were moving from in side to outside and vise versa. Before his arrival, Chamman, Sombhar and Rama Shankar were dead. He also chased the running dacoits. The dacoits were also turning their faces towards the chasers and firing at random. In that process, he received injury. Kalika also received injury in that process. He later on died. 7. P.W. 5 Lalloo is another eye-wit ness. He has his house nearby the house of the complainant. After hearing the shouts coming from the house of the deceased and (complainant), he got up and he heard the fire shots. He took up his lathi and torch and went near the place of occurrence. There was a lantern burning. Pual was also burning and there was abundant light. In that process, he had identified the named accused, who were known from before. He also saw the house breaking by the dacoits with the help of Henga. He heard the warning given by Rama Shankar (deceased) that in case he was left alive, he would take a revenge against them. Thereafter, the dacoits entered the house of the deceased Rama Shankar and came nearby the complainant. They murdered him. While chasing, Kalika received fire shots and died shortly thereafter. He heard the warning given by Rama Shankar (deceased) that in case he was left alive, he would take a revenge against them. Thereafter, the dacoits entered the house of the deceased Rama Shankar and came nearby the complainant. They murdered him. While chasing, Kalika received fire shots and died shortly thereafter. In his presence, the I.O. had carried out the investigation. 8. P.W. 6 is Chandrika, another eye witness. He has also given the story in the same vein as done by other three P.Ws. The remaining evidence is formal in nature. 9. P.W 7 Dr. P.L. Pandey had carried out the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Somru, Rama Shankar, Kalika and Chamman, as noted in the judgment of the learned trial Court in paragraph 6. 10. P.W. 9 Dr. S.K. Pandey had medically examined the injuries of Bechan, Chandrika and Changu Lal (They had all received firearm injuries as noted by him). One Chottey Lal Baniya has given an affidavit Ex-Kha-5 pages 42-43 of the paper book, to show that there was an enmity between Rama Shankar, deceased and Rang Bahadur Singh, accused regarding the possession of some land, vis-a-viz Rama Shankar deceased. He has alleged that deceased Rama Shankar had his plot about 8-10 lathas away from the plot of this witness. He used to get his plot cultivated formerly by Rama Shankar Yadav (deceased). Later on since Rama Shankar was not giving the proper yield to him, he got that plot vacated from him and handed over the same to Rang Bahadur, accused in 1977 for cultivation. In the relevant year, 1977-78, Rang Bahadur had cultivated the wheat crop in that field and on account of that fact, there was an enmity between Rama Shankar Yadav (deceased) and the accused Rang Bahadur and on account of this enmity, Rang Bahadur has been implicated. 11. P.W. 1 Dr. Anik, Kr. Rastogi had medically examined the injuries of Lal Chand, Ramji, Keshav, Kalloo, Mangnu. They were all firearm injures and had been caused by firearms and they would have occurred in the night of occurrence. 12. P.W. 2 Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W. 11, Sri K.N. Singh, P.W. 12, Sri. R.L. Yadav are the Investigating Officers and had proved the documents prepared by them in that connection. P.W. 8 Sri A.K. Sinha was Head Constable. 12. P.W. 2 Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W. 11, Sri K.N. Singh, P.W. 12, Sri. R.L. Yadav are the Investigating Officers and had proved the documents prepared by them in that connection. P.W. 8 Sri A.K. Sinha was Head Constable. He had registered the case in the G.D. and prepared the chik etc. in presence of S.O. Sri. K.N. Singh. P.W. lion 2-8-78 at about 6.15 a.m. He sent the special report as well as wireless set information. 13. P.W. 10, H.C. Girdhari Yadav was posted at outpost Adalpura, P.S. Chunar Distt, Mirzapur. In the night of occurrence, at about 2.30 a.m. Bhairav and Methai Lal (not examined) had brought the written FIR at this outpost. But since it was not a reporting outpost, he referred these persons to the P.S. Chunar for necessary action i.e. for lodging FIR etc. They also told him that they had identified Rang Bahadur, Prem Singh and Baba alias Man-gala Gosain in the dacoity and there were several injured persons left on the spot. Hence after directing them to go to the P.S. Chunar he went to the spot on truck and brought 8 injured persons and got them medically examined on S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, as noted above. He also carried the dead-bodies for post-mortem examination at the behest of the I.O. Sri. K.N. Singh. 14. Accused Rang Bahadur Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. had stated that the facts alleged by the prosecution against him, are incorrect. He had no concern with this dacoity. He did not participate in the same. Regarding the details of the prosecution story, he has pleaded his ignorance. Additionally he has stated that there was enmity between him and the complainant's side. Sarju was the uncle of Rama Shankar, deceased and Munder Singh was grandfather of this accused. Sarju had launched a criminal case of the theft against Munder Singh. Again he has said that he had cultivated the field of Chottey Lal Baniya, whose affidavit has been referred to above earlier. In that connection, he had some dispute with Rama Shankar, deceased and on account of that, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Mangala Giri has also followed the same track as the accused Rang Bahadur referred to above. He has further said that he was not known as Baba Giri as alleged by the prosecution wit nesses. In that connection, he had some dispute with Rama Shankar, deceased and on account of that, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Mangala Giri has also followed the same track as the accused Rang Bahadur referred to above. He has further said that he was not known as Baba Giri as alleged by the prosecution wit nesses. He has been implicated at the be hest of the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh, who is related to one Baba Singh of the same village and at his behest, he has been falsely implicated. 15. Accused Prem Singh has also adopted the same track. He also said that on account of enmity, he has been falsely implicated. 16. Apart from filing of an affidavit of Chottey Lal Baniya referred to above, the accused have examined D.W. 1 Jai Shri. He has said that a road passes from Chunar Ghat and connects the Varanasi road. There in house of the deceased Ram Shankar by the side of the road and to the west of the house of Rama Shankar, there is a house of this witness. In the night of the occurrence, at about 11.30 p.m., there were shouts and loud noises raised that dacoits had come. He got up and saw Rama Shankar, Chamman, Sombhar and Kalika lying dead. Keshav, Ramji, Mannan and others, even Lal Chand were left injured. On enquiry, he was told by the witnesses present that some unknown dacoits had committed dacoity and murders. None was naming the present dacoits (respondents). There was a bad blood between Rama Shankar deceased and the accused Rang Bahadur on account of cultivation of some land. Accused Mangala Giri is not know as Babagiri. D.W. 2, is Roop Narain Singh. He has proved that there was some enmity between the two camps and on account of enmity, he has been falsely implicated. 17. The learned trial Court analysed the entire evidence and circumstance on the record. He found that the prosecution case suffered from glaring infirmities and has not been proved to the hilt. He, there fore, acquitted all the accused persons. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the State of U.P. has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at stretch and perused the record intensively. Verified that there is much force in this appeal and it deserves to be allowed. 19. He, there fore, acquitted all the accused persons. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the State of U.P. has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at stretch and perused the record intensively. Verified that there is much force in this appeal and it deserves to be allowed. 19. We are reminded of the classical words used by Narad in reply to a question by Yudhisthir after the conclusion of Mahabharat war. He said the greatest calamity comes when the prosecutor be comes the devourer (Rakshak Bhawati Bhakshak). 20. In this case Sri, K.N. Singh, Investigating Officer, who happened to be the S.H.O. at the relevant P.S. was expected to find out the truth and bring to book the real culprits and collect proper and legal evidence for the case but unfortunately, he has, in fact, done everything and tried to do everything, which would smash the prosecution case and the interest of the accused can be safeguarded at whatsoever cost and the justice may be thrown to the winds. We are forced to make this statement not on the basis of the prosecution base but on the basis of the defence version itself. In the statement under Section 313, Cr. C.P., the accused Mangala Giri stated in reply to question 25 that formerly Thakur Baba Singh was named as an accused in the FIR but he happened to be a relation of Thakur K.N. Singh, S.O.P.W. 11 in this case and, therefore, he got this accused substituted for that Thakur accused Baba Singh. Therefore, the accused has levelled a very serious charge against the independent working of Sri. K.N. Singh, 1.6. in this case. When Sri. K.N. Singh was in the witness box as PW 11, questions were put to him in para 32 at page 108, in the paper-book as to whether he made any enquiries with regard to Baba Singh and whether he knew that Tandia and Nesi villages are hamlets of Pusupur village. He does not recollect if he had gone there, although he was in the witness box within less than 2 years of the actual occurrence. He did not enquire as to whether there was a man like Baba Singh in village Tandia. Tandia is a hamlet of Pasupur. He does not recollect if he had gone there, although he was in the witness box within less than 2 years of the actual occurrence. He did not enquire as to whether there was a man like Baba Singh in village Tandia. Tandia is a hamlet of Pasupur. He had to admit that Baba Singh was named in the FIR as an accused but he did not find out anything about Baba Singh because the complainant Smt. Bhulani had stated that in fact, Baba @ Mangala Giri, accused had participated in the crime and she has wrongly named Baba Singh. That is why, he did not even try to trace out Baba Singh. The cross-examiner further chased him in para 33 and suggestively put questions, which he replied by simply denying that he knew Baba Singh of Tandia very well, but intentionally he was concealing this fact from the Court simply because Baba Singh is related to him. He is also a Thakur by caste. He said that it was wrong to suggest that in order to save Thakur Baba Singh, he substituted his name by Mangala Gosain. This way, the replies given by him, do not inspire confidence. In para 34, he had to admit that he carried out raid at the house of Mongla accused on the following day i.e. on 3rd of August, 1988. His house is about 3 furlongs away from the house of the complainant. But he could not notice as to whether Mangala's house was visible from the spot. He has also denied that in order to save actual Baba Singh, culprit, he performed paper exercises only on August 3, 1978 just to cloud the actual involvement of Thakur Mangala Singh. He was further concerned in para 39 and had to admit that the attachment order dated 12 August, 1978 was prepared on the basis of his report praying for the attachment of the properties of Baba Gosain, which he had given in the lower Court. In that warrant, Baba's father name was written as Sahdeo, whereas father's name of Mangala Giri @ Gosain, accused is Mahadeo, resident of village Rohania. He admitted that although other was a mistake in the parentage and residence of the accused Mangala Gosain, even then, he attached his properties. In that warrant, Baba's father name was written as Sahdeo, whereas father's name of Mangala Giri @ Gosain, accused is Mahadeo, resident of village Rohania. He admitted that although other was a mistake in the parentage and residence of the accused Mangala Gosain, even then, he attached his properties. All these things go to show that Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. P.W. 11 was not acting as an impartial collector of evidence but he was actually interested in safeguarding the interest of Thakur accused and for that purpose, he has committed complete sabotage as far as the prosecution case in concerned. There are other improprieties, actions and omissions of Sri K.N. Singh, I.O., which further fortify our belief that he was not acting honestly and in a bonafide manner. 21. In para 11 in the cross-examination, paper book page No. 101, he admitted that the chik and G.D. entries were prepared in his presence, which bears his signature too. A carbon copy of the original chik was also prepared simultaneously but he did not send that carbon copy with the dead body, which was sent for postmortem examination. He withheld that document with him only and this document was sent by him to the higher authorities alongwith the case diary, but not alongwith the person, who carried out the dead-bodies for postmortem examination. A very bogus and unconvincing reply has been given by him as to why he omitted to send the copy of the chik alongwith the dead-body. He said that he did not deem it essential. It is really strange for an officer of the rank of S.H.O. to reply a question in such a manner. An officer becomes S.H.O. after putting not less than 15-20 years of service in the police department. Therefore, he know very well that necessarily the copy of the chik report should be also sent alongwith the dead-bodies for post-mortem examination. 22. In para 12 of his statement he admitted that he did not name the accused in the documents which he sent for post mortem examination reply. In para 13, he admits that therefore, a wireless set information is sent to the Superintendent of Police. But it is not essential to send the names of the named accused in that information. It is really an absurd reply. In para 13, he admits that therefore, a wireless set information is sent to the Superintendent of Police. But it is not essential to send the names of the named accused in that information. It is really an absurd reply. The Superintendent of Police being Head of the Institution in the district is entitled to get an information at the earliest regarding the commission of hazardous crime. Nay even the names of the actual culprit or culprits involved should be given to him. Therefore, the reply given by Sri K.N. Singh does not inspire confidence. It appear that he was working to achieve his sole motto i.e. to ensure the acquittal of the accused, incidentally, who happened to be Thakur by caste. He does not forbearer or eschew falsity even. In para15, he states that on 2-8-78 upto 8 p.m., Head Constable Girdhari Yadav, P.W. 1 had not appeared before him. He forgets that in the Panchayat names prepared in his presence by P.W. 2, Thakur Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh, I.O. who had started alongwith Sri K.N. Singh from the P.S. and had reached the spot alongwith him. In para 2, he states that under the direction of Sri K.N. Singh, he prepared the Panchayatnamas of the deceased persons and documents related thereto. In the Panchayatnamas, there is an entry that the dead-bodies were entrusted to Sri Girdhari Yadav, P.W. 10. Therefore, the statement of Sri K.N. Singh that Constable Girdhari Yadav had not appeared before him on that date i.e. 2-8-78 upto 8 p.m., is wrong. He did not record his statement although head mitts that his statement was very much relevant. In para 22, he states that this case was under his investigation upto 19-8-78. Thereafter, he proceeded on medical leave. The investigation was entrusted to Sri Ram Pal Yadav, P.W. 12. In para 24, he says that he could not interrogate Keshav, accused because he was not available. In fact, Keshav was in the hospital and he knew it very well. In the process of investigation of such a serious crime, he was duty bound to interrogate at least the injured witnesses. But he failed to do so. That amounts to serious dereliction of duty on his part. In fact, Keshav was in the hospital and he knew it very well. In the process of investigation of such a serious crime, he was duty bound to interrogate at least the injured witnesses. But he failed to do so. That amounts to serious dereliction of duty on his part. In para 34, he states that he raided the houses of Mangala on 3-8-78 although he reached the spot on the date i.e. 2-8-78 near about 9 a.m. In case of named accused, it is essential for the I.O. to arrest the accused at the earliest. But he failed to do so. That also shows that he was not doing his job faithfully and honestly. 33. This way, we want to show that Sri K.N. Singh has not done the job honestly. Therefore, the prosecution should not be allowed to suffer for the defaults made by him as the law is that no person howsoever high he may be, can be arbiter of the fate of the prosecution case solely. 34. The Courts of law are expected to disengage grain from the chaff and in order to do justice, they have to delve deep on record and circumstances of the case. After doing this exercise, we find that the intentional effort made by Sri K.N. Singh, who sabotaged the prosecution case, should not be allowed to succeed. 35. large number of cases have been cited by Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the accused in order to emphasise that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the trial Court findings should not be upset if they are not found to be totally perverse and not based on the records. Rather, it is essential to accept the findings of the trial Court. If two views are equally possible, including the one taken by the learned trial Court normally the High Court should not substitute its own opinion views and opinion these of the trail Court, There can be no dispute with regard to this exposition of law. Rather, it is essential to accept the findings of the trial Court. If two views are equally possible, including the one taken by the learned trial Court normally the High Court should not substitute its own opinion views and opinion these of the trail Court, There can be no dispute with regard to this exposition of law. The latest legal position has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment dated 14-8-97 Ajit Sawant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, JT 1997 (7) SC 414, 1997 JIC 1241 (SC), which we deem proper to incorporate in this judgment in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as below:- Para-12- "section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponds to Section 417 of the old Code provides for appeal in case of acquittal. Para-13-"there was quite a controversy among the Courts with considerable live gence of judicial opinion as to the scope of appeal against an order of acquittal. This controversy remained unabated till some guideline was indicated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor, L.R. 61, Indian Appeals 398 : AIR 1934 P.C. 227. This decision was considered in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 (3) SCR 120 , in which the legal position was explained by this Court as under:- (1) The evidence upon which the order of acquittal was passed by the trial Court can be reviewed, depreciated and reappraised by the Appellate Court. (2) The principle laid down by the Privy Counsel in Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor, L.R. 61 Indian Appeals 398 (supra) provide correct guidelines for the Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal against the order of acquittal. (3) The words "substantial and compelling reason" good and sufficiently cogent reason "or" strong reasons" used by this Court in its various judgments do not have the effect of curtailing power of the High Court to reconsider, review or scrutinise the entire evidence on record so as the come to its own conclusion in deciding the appeal against an order of acquittal. As a matter of fact, the powers of the High Court are not different from its powers in an ordinary appeal against conviction. As a matter of fact, the powers of the High Court are not different from its powers in an ordinary appeal against conviction. The additional burden which is placed on the High Court is that it has to be consider each of the grounds which had prompted the trial Court lo pass the order of acquittal and to record its own reasons for not agreeing with the trial Court. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Das, AIR 1972 SC 677 , 1972 (3) SCR 58 , this Court again reiterated the above principles and pointed out that there were certain cardinal rules which had always to be kept in view in appeal against acquittal. It was pointed out that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused especially when he has been ac quitted by the trial Court. It was further to be kept in view that if two views of the matter are possible, the view which favours the accused has to be adopted. The Appellate Court has also to keep in view the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanaur of wit nesses and that the accused is still entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a rational thinking person will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of an irrational mind. Para 16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as under:- (1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers, it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record or in other words perverse. (2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record or in other words perverse. (3) Before reversing the findings of acquittal the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reason for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view ex pressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. (5) If the High Court on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and ob serving their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. (7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused." Since this ruling has been delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire catena of rulings, including those cited by Sri Chaturvedi, a learned and distinguished Counsel, the rulings are contained in para 15 of this judgment. Therefore, it is not essential to refer to all the rulings referred by Chaturvedi and distinguish them individually because we are very much in agreement with his argument that the High Court hearing an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, is to some extent hesitant. Therefore, it is not essential to refer to all the rulings referred by Chaturvedi and distinguish them individually because we are very much in agreement with his argument that the High Court hearing an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, is to some extent hesitant. All the same in view of the latest position as noted above, the High Court has to do its onerous duty. 36. The time has changed and the society has under-gone a lot of decomposition and pollution. Even the relation wit nesses are under the fear of the guns of the accused and normally they too do not turn up to tell the truth for fear of their own life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was compelled to make the following observation in Krishna and others v. Krishna Veni and another, JT 1997 (1) SC 667, 1997 JIC 406 (SC), in para 10. The Judge using the Court cannot sit in ivory towers and ignorant of the condition prevalent in the society "the object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the wit ness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when expeditious trial is conducted. 37. We are also conscious of the fact that there is always a presumption in favour of the accused, which stands further re-enforced by the fact that the learned trail Judge, has recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. We are also conscious of the fact that even a partisan and interested witness, if he had an opportunity of seeing the incident with his own eyes, including identification of the culprits, can be reliable, but the Court has to be very cautious in properly and intensively scrutinizing that evidence. But simply because the evidence consists of partisan and interested witnesses, they cannot be scored off the record nor it can be said that it is absolutely unreliable on this ground alone. But simply because the evidence consists of partisan and interested witnesses, they cannot be scored off the record nor it can be said that it is absolutely unreliable on this ground alone. If there are two valid conclusion's possible from the evidence on the record, including the view taken by the learned trial Court passing an order of acquittal and the view, which the High Court is going to take, is equally possible, even then the view of the learned trial Court should be accepted and the appellate Court can not substitute its views by upsetting this order and judgment passed by the learned trail Court. Of course, where there is total perversity and the High Court finds that the view taken by the learned trail Court cannot be taken by a reasonable and prudent man, it becomes the duty of the High Court to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and pass suitable orders as the Court deems fit in accordance with law. We are again conscious of the fact that plea of self-defence if taken by the accused, has to be proved by them. But the degree of the proof would not be the same as in case of prosecution and even preponderance of probabilities leading to the right of private defence available to the accused shall be sufficient to accept the version taken by the accused. 38. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act runs as below:- "number of witnesses-No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." 39. Therefore, it is not the quantity of evidence, rather it is the quality of evidence, which determines the fate of any case. The rule of corroboration is not a statutory law but it is a precaution, which the courts take to verify themselves for their conclusions to insist upon corroboration from independent material sources. It means that the evidence of single person in a particular fact, can be accepted even if it is not corroborated from any other source, however, if it is fully reliable. 40. In this perspective, we have to analyse the evidence on the record. It means that the evidence of single person in a particular fact, can be accepted even if it is not corroborated from any other source, however, if it is fully reliable. 40. In this perspective, we have to analyse the evidence on the record. At the outset, we want to make it clear that dispute vigorous efforts, the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Chaturvedi could not show that the eye-witnesses have faltered anywhere in depicting (sic) the actual position of the dacoity with murder in this case. Efforts have been made to show that the substantive evidence given by the injured and eye-witnesses, maybe correct, but if the corroborative evidence, which falls, subsequently, including the performance of the I.Os. etc. Looks some what shakey, the substantive evidence should also not be thrown to the winds. This is not a correct approach rather it will amount to throwing the baby with bath water. When the substantive evidence inspires confidence, the Court can act upon it even though corroborative evidence may not support the same 100%. 41. The picture of the medical condition of the injured and the deceased per sons has been noted earlier. There has been no material cross-examination on them. Nor there is any suggestion that the dacoity did not take place or the injured did not receive injury in that process and the deceased persons did not die at the hands of the culprits. Therefore, without saying much, we can say that this fact is fully proved that the dacoity was committed in the house of the complainant in the night of 1/2-8-78 and several persons received injuries and about 5 persons lost their lives. 42. As regards the light available, there is consistent evidence that there were lights of following nature; a lantern was burning near the place where the complainant was sleeping and her statement that her young child, as a few months old, was passing stool in the night is reliable. Therefore, the lantern was purposely kept burning throughout this night. This point has not been challenged. Even there were torches with the witnesses. The I.O. examined them and after finding that they were in working condition and after preparing Supurdaginama, he returned them to the owners. All the witnesses examined on this point have uniform ally stated that they had their own torches, which they were flashing. This point has not been challenged. Even there were torches with the witnesses. The I.O. examined them and after finding that they were in working condition and after preparing Supurdaginama, he returned them to the owners. All the witnesses examined on this point have uniform ally stated that they had their own torches, which they were flashing. All of them have further stated that the dacoits too were flashing their torches just to create a lot of light. To top all these things, Pual was burning infant of the house of the comp infant at a small distance in less than 30 puces from the houses of the complainant and her father-in-laws. Thus there was flood of light available to the witnesses to identify the culprits. Not only this, the dacoity continued for nearly half an hour or even more. The dacoits were constantly on move. They were going inside the house and coming outside with booty or with threats to the witnesses. They were constantly on move. Even while fleeing away from the scene, they were chased by the witnesses. One of them Kal Shankar was even shot dead. All these things provided ample opportunity to the witnesses to identify the culprits. Not only this, all the three named accused belonged to the ad joining villages and they were known to the witness even prior to the incident. Hence it was quite easy for the witnesses to correctly identify the known and named culprits. In the general background we propose to scan the evidence of eye-witnesses, in order to see if they had actually an opportunity in the light available and circumstances placed, to show the actual involvement of the present culprits. 43. The star witness in this connection is Smt. Bhulai, P.W. 4, the complainant of the case and widow of Rama Shankar Yadav, who was shot dead before her eyes. In para 1, she states that she was sleeping in a separate cot with her husband Rama Shankar, then Pradhan of the village. She had a breast feeding child aged about a few months. In the adjoining old house where her fathers-in-law Chamman and Sombhar were sleeping, a lantern was burning. That was giving sufficient light. In para 1, she states that she was sleeping in a separate cot with her husband Rama Shankar, then Pradhan of the village. She had a breast feeding child aged about a few months. In the adjoining old house where her fathers-in-law Chamman and Sombhar were sleeping, a lantern was burning. That was giving sufficient light. The husband as usual was used to sleep with a torch by his side, while she was still awake about 14-15 dacoits first raided the old house, where Chamman and Sombhar were sleeping. This was the house where important and valuable articles had been stored. Since the dacoits belong to the adjoining villages, they could easily know about this fact. Therefore, they concentrated first upon the old house, which was being watched by Sombhar and Chamman. The dacoits asked Chamman and Sombhar to get the house opened. But they did not oblige. Then the culprits started assaulting them with their weapons. The dacoits were also flashing their torches (naturally to ensure that their attack did not go astray). Upon that these two persons shouted and her husband also and replied by shouting and counter shouting. Then Ram Lakhan burnt Pual and it created flood light on the spot. Dacoits compelled him after mild assault to sit there and not to escape. He complied with it. She says further that in the light, she identified the culprits, namely, Prem Singh, Rang Bahadur and Baba Gosain, whom she knew from before. She herself is not a Pardanashin lady. These persons thus further used to visit her husband who was a Pradhan of the village quite often. Therefore, she had an opportunity to know and identify them as known from as known before. Moreover, she her self used to visit fields and Kalihan etc. and used to see the named accused quite often. Not only this, even on ceremonials occasions, these accused used to visit her house also and vice versa. Further she states that her father-in-laws, after naming the accused requested to go on looting spree alright but not to assault anybody. Then one of the dacoits cautioned his friends and collage as to shoot them down as they had identified them as their lives would be injurious to their own inter est later on. Her husband was seeing all these things with his own eyes. Then one of the dacoits cautioned his friends and collage as to shoot them down as they had identified them as their lives would be injurious to their own inter est later on. Her husband was seeing all these things with his own eyes. Naturally his blood was still hot and he warned the dacoits that he would not allow the things to lie down. Rather, he would take a revenge in his own way in future, little knowing that these brave words of his, would be responsible for his instantaneous death, shortly to follows. But nobody worth the salt could not have allowed his consideration of personal safety and to see and chew down the murderous assault upon their fathers and uncles. This was the idea which permeated the complainant's husband to throw a challenge to the dacoits from his roof itself. Naturally the dacoits broke open the doors of this new house also and came to the roof. They murdered her husband in cold blood. She says in para 8 that it was Baba Gosain, accused, who first shoot her husband dead. She also says that the dacoits took about half an hour in performing this dastardly crime. Thereafter, the witnesses' pressure increased and they escaped with the booty. After sometime, she got the FIR scribed by Ravi, a boy Ravi under his teens and sent the same through Methai Lal and Bhairon, to the police station. Next date, the I.O. came and performed the job of investigation. At the outset, we wish to say that she is a villager and illiterate lady, without any background of education. She has put her thumb impression upon the documents, including the FIR, depositions. In para 20, she says that she is totally illiterate. Day consists of 16 hours and so also the night. She does not know how many minutes constitute an hour. But she knows that there are 12 months in a year and three seasons. We have mentioned her these words just to show that we have to judge the evidence of this illiterate lady in the light of her ignorant background, while deciding the veracity of her story, superficial and sophisticated standard of gentry should not be kept in mind by the Court and it should examine her statement with the standard of such ignorant citizen of non-urban areas. The law had also been that while judging a statement of a witness, the Court had to sit in the arm chair of such witness and clothe himself with all the surroundings of that land and then bring out the meaning from the words and sentences used by the witness concerned. She has said in para 18 in her cross-examination that the scribe of the report Ravi was only 10 years old and he was about 11-12 years old on 19-11-79. But this is not correct as she has no idea about the actual age. The real age of Ravi, the scribe had been given by P.W. 6 Chandrika in para 10. He says that Ravi Shankar scribe is his brother. He had passed 10th class in 1st Division. He was about 18-19 years old on the date of the evidence i.e. 21-11-79 i.e. about 18 years old on the date of occurrence. He was engaged in a service at Kanpur. He had passed his High School from Bachchaon, situate in Distt. Varanasi. Therefore, this virulent attack by Sri Chaturvedi that an illiterate lady like Smt. Bhulani and a child like Ravi Shankar, scribe could not have scribed the FIR so meticulously as it appears it is clear that all the injured persons were there. They must be discussing all these things and all these words must be in the hearing of the scribe while jotting down the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR of this nature was not possible at the dictation of the complainant, who had recently been a widow and 4-5 dead-bodies were lying around. In para 19, she says that nobody had advised her to get a written FIR scribed. Rather, it was a product of her own mind may be, Mr. Chaturvedi argues that this statement is not correct 100% and somebody else would have given this idea to her. But that does not go to the root of the case to make the FIR an unreliable document. In para 21, she says that when she was dictating the FIR, ail the injured persons were there. It means that they must have murdered. Something regarding their own injuries and the performance of the dacoits witnesses by them. 44. She was tested as to how she knew the accused Rang Bahadur Singh. In para 21, she says that when she was dictating the FIR, ail the injured persons were there. It means that they must have murdered. Something regarding their own injuries and the performance of the dacoits witnesses by them. 44. She was tested as to how she knew the accused Rang Bahadur Singh. In para 22, she says that her father belongs to Varanasi city. But she had gone to the villages of the accused. Rang Bahadur Singh who is a Thakur. She did not know as to whether he was married or not and who was his father and brother. She does not know any other member of his family, nor their number. But most naturally the questions should have been for a fair cross-examiner to put to her as to how then she came to know about Rang Bahadur Singh, when she did not know about any other members of his family. But the shrewd and intelligent cross-examiner withheld this statement and could not obtain a reply from her. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chaturvedi could not be allowed to argue that when she did not know the members of the family of Rang Bahadur Singh, she could equally not know nothing about the Rang Bahadur himself. This will not be a correct approach. There might be some specialty with Rang Bahadur Singh which this illiterate village lady could not reveal here and intentionally the lawyer did not put any specific question on this point. Under these circumstances, we do not entertain the argument of Sri Chaturvedi, as correct and hold that she fully knew this accused from before. 45. As regards Prem Singh, she says in para 23 that she has been in his house, which is situated in village Tandia, towards the east of the Abadi. His house faces east and it is Kachcha. His father's name is perhaps Kalika Singh, which is in fact, partially correct. Father's name of Prem Singh is Thakur Prasad Singh. In the FIR, his father's name has not been given. She savs that he was known in the village as 1 dkur'. Perhaps he is the only son of his father. What work actually Prem Bahadur Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh were doing she did not recollect. She has no farm of her own in village Tandia and Parsupur. In the FIR, his father's name has not been given. She savs that he was known in the village as 1 dkur'. Perhaps he is the only son of his father. What work actually Prem Bahadur Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh were doing she did not recollect. She has no farm of her own in village Tandia and Parsupur. These statements of this witness have not been challenged regarding their actual correctness. 46. Another relevant aspect of her statement is that all these three named accused had their faces opened and they had not made any effort to conceal them. The learned Counsel on the basis of some rulings has stressed that this is not a natural conduct. We do not agree, These days crimes arc increasing manifolds and criminals have become so dare devils that they commit broad-day-light murders in markets and roads at public places, including Banks etc. Where the security guards have been placed duly armed. Hence, now this has become a stale argument. The actual position is that the dare devil criminals do not care for anything but only think that they can commit crimes and at any place even in broad day light. On this ground, we do not entertain the attacks levelled by the learned Counsel. 47. In para 27, she says that her husband was fired from a distance of 5½ cubits i.e. about 10 feet. This statement finds support from the post-mortem report as no blackening and charring have been found by the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination. 48. In para 33, she says that the conversation going on in between the dacoits and Chamman were heard by her. There upon her husband cried and the pual was burnt. A look at the site-plan clearly shows that the conversation could be easily audible to the witnesses and her husband because the distance was very short. An effort was made to prove that there was an enmity between her husband and the accused with regard to fields of Chottey Lal Baniya (Ex.-Kha-5). She has refuted the allegation that at the instance of the I.O., she was making a false statement. In para 35, she says that her husband had named the culprits while cautioning them that he would take a revange. She has refuted the allegation that at the instance of the I.O., she was making a false statement. In para 35, she says that her husband had named the culprits while cautioning them that he would take a revange. Thus on all the relevant points, she has given a very straight-forward evidence and after scanning her evidence, we come to an irresistible conclusion that she has spoken the whole truth with regard to all the relevant factors relating to this crime. Her presence on the spot cannot be denied. Nor has it been so denied. Under these circumstances, we think that her solitary statement, coupled with other evidence on the record, is sufficient to convict the accused and the learned trial Court has not done proper justice to her evidence as we shall see later on. 49. P.W. 3 is Keshav, an injured witness, whose presence cannot be denied nor has it been denied. He had a torch and several other persons were also having torches and flashing them constantly. The Pual was burnt, which created flood light and he could easily identify the culprits, who were also known from before. He has also described that while being chased by the witnesses, the dacoits were turning their faces towards the witnesses and firing at them at random to ward off. Their arrest by the villagers that is the additional reason that enabled him to identify the named culprits. He further said that later on the injured witness Lal Chand also died in the Varanasi Hospital. 50. In the cross-examination, in para 10, he says that he was interrogated by the I.O. about 20-22 days after the occurrence. Learned Counsel as well as the learned trial Court has given undue stress upon it. Firstly, we do not know on which date this witness was discharged from the Hospital and secondly, because the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh was playing a partisan role who was also suffering from the disease of inertia. Therefore, he did not do his proper duty by immediately interrogating the relevant witnesses, including Keshav. Therefore, on this ground of insufficiency of the I.O., the testimony of this eye-witness cannot be shaken. The learned trial Court has improperly and for undisclosed reasons, has rejected his testimony. In para 13, he says that in the two houses of the deceased Rama Shankar, there is hardly a distance of 7-8 paces. Therefore, on this ground of insufficiency of the I.O., the testimony of this eye-witness cannot be shaken. The learned trial Court has improperly and for undisclosed reasons, has rejected his testimony. In para 13, he says that in the two houses of the deceased Rama Shankar, there is hardly a distance of 7-8 paces. Therefore, the voice and conversation in between the dacoits and (he injured persons could be easily heard by this witness loo. In para 14 he says that he had safely concealed himself behind some bushes in order to ward off the direct at tack by the dacoits. But all the same, he kept a vigil on the performance of the dacoits and thus he saw their faces repeatedly and identified them without any difficulty. The place where he was hiding himself was about 20-22 paces from the actual place of dacoity in the abundant light, there was no difficulty at all to identify the known dacoits. He has frankly admitted that no dacoits had concealed his face. For the reasons given above, we are rejecting the argument based upon this fact that known dacoits should necessarily have concealed their faces. 51. Further, he says that Thakur accused, namely Prem Singh and Rang Bahadur had guns. Thakur Rang Bahadur's gun was double barrel, but he could not recollect the barrel of Prem Singh's gun. So was the case with the gun of Gosain i.e. Mangala Gin. Regarding some of the details missing in the statement under Section 161, Cr. RC, our attention has been drawn to para 17 of his statement. He had received injuries near a tank. That stands corroborated by the medical evidence as noted above. 52. In para 19, he clearly stated that he cannot say as to which dacoits hit which person. That is not a significant deviation from the truth. Rather, is appears to be more natural. In para 22, he says that he identified all the three dacoits at the house of Rama Shankar. It was although a dark night, but the other light described by him was more than sufficient to identify the culprits. In para 26, he says that Dewan of Adalapur (P.W. 10, Girdhari Yadav) had taken him to the Hospital in truck. Neither he nor the other injured persons spoke the names of the dacoits, who had participated in the dastardly act. In para 26, he says that Dewan of Adalapur (P.W. 10, Girdhari Yadav) had taken him to the Hospital in truck. Neither he nor the other injured persons spoke the names of the dacoits, who had participated in the dastardly act. The reason was simply that they were scathing and groaning due to injuries. In such a stage, nobody can speak. With regard to himself, he says that he was not in a position to speak, even when he reached the Hospital. In the cross-examination, in para 27, he says that he cannot give the names of all the persons of the dacoits houses. It was quite natural. Here also the relevant question was not put by the cross-examiner as to how he knew the name of the accused only and not other members of their houses. This was not a lapse on his part but a intentional omission to ensure that the truth might not come out and could remain a mystery, from which the benefit could be derived later on. The house of Prem Singh is situate quite nearby and faces east. In para 29, he says that he does not know about the plot of Chottey Lal Baniya. He know that there were some disputes between Rama Shankar and accused Rang Bahadur and his father, sometimes in 1977, He belongs to the caste of Rama Shankar, deceased. He has clearly said that the dead-body of Rama Shankar was seen by him on the roof, but he denies that pual was burnt at the instance of the police. In para 32, he has said that he has not seen the house of Mangala. He has not gone there. He does not know much about his family members as he was not much on visiting terms with him. But his house in only 4 furlongs away from the place of occurrence. He does not know Baba and anybody by his name, who resides in his village. But in villages, Gosains are known as Gosains. So Mangala was known as Baba Gosain colloquially. He did not give the address of Mangala Gosain fully to the I.O. in para 38, he says that although he was sleeping, but he got up after hearing the fire shots. It has not been disputed that this witness had received injuries somewhere else and not at the hands of the dacoits. He did not give the address of Mangala Gosain fully to the I.O. in para 38, he says that although he was sleeping, but he got up after hearing the fire shots. It has not been disputed that this witness had received injuries somewhere else and not at the hands of the dacoits. Either his injuries were forged and fictitious. It has also not been proved that this witness was posted at a place from where he could not sec the occurrence and so identified the accused. Therefore, there is no earthly reason to show that this witness is not telling the truth. Of course, some margin has to be given to the village witnesses. But after that, we have scanned the evidence with additional care and we find that he has given a truthful version. We much assert at this place that due to negligence or lather-gic or partisanship of the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh, many things could not be elicited in the statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and for that, this witness or any other witness could not be blamed. We find that the solitary statement of Keshav, P.W. 1, coupled with medical evidence on the record, is sufficient for convicting the accused. 53. RW 5, Lallo has frankly described the incidents of this occurrence. His own house is at a small distance towards the west of the house of the complainant. Therefore, after hearing the shots, without any delay, he reached near the spot and saw the occurrence. He had also a torch with him. Regarding other sources of light, he has given uniform statement. In fact, the injured persons met their death mostly on account of the fact that they had indicated to the dacoits that they had seen their performance with their own eyes and they might take revange or depose against them. So, in order to destroy the evidence altogether, these persons were killed. He identified the dacoits from a safe distance and in the light available. Not only that, he chased them also. During that process, Lal Chand and Kalika lost their lives. Kalika's body was brought to the house of Rarna Shankar, where he died shortly thereafter. He had helped the I.O. in inspecting the spot and collecting evidence. He had also joined the witnesses in chasing the dacoits. As he was not injured, he was not taken to the Hospital. During that process, Lal Chand and Kalika lost their lives. Kalika's body was brought to the house of Rarna Shankar, where he died shortly thereafter. He had helped the I.O. in inspecting the spot and collecting evidence. He had also joined the witnesses in chasing the dacoits. As he was not injured, he was not taken to the Hospital. But the I.O. interrogated him on the same day. By that lime, the injured persons had not returned from Varanasi. Ravi Shankar scribe of the FIR was his cousin. His own torch was of three cells and of white colour, which he was flashing. The pual, which was burnt, was tagged for a year throughout. All the three known dacoits had double barrel guns. But they had not concealed their faces. In para 21, he says that he clearly heard the conversation going in between the deceased Chamman and the dacoits and he also heard the words used by Rama Shankar, deceased towards the dacoits. Tandia and Parsupur are the hamlets. Baba Singh has no cultivation in Parsupur and India villages. Therefore, he wants to say that the dacoits, whom he identified, was Baba Gosain and not Baba Singh. Baba Singh also passes by the way via his village quite occasionally and there was only exchage of pleasantries between him and baba Singh. This way, he wants to exclude Baba Singh from the confusion sought to be created by the cross-examiner in order to save Baba Singh, which effort most fail. Mangala Giri is the only son of his father. He denies that in order to save Baba Singh, he is giving a false evidence and implicating Mangala Giri in his place. In fact, he had seen him while committing dacoity. This way, even his statement, which is quite independent and passes through a very intensive scrutiny at our hands, inspires confidence and deserves to be accepted to in chief the accused. 54. Now we come to P.W. 6 Chandrika, an injured witness. He too has supported the prosecution version from beginning till end. He was also injured at the hands of dacoits as visible from his injury report noted above. He was also sent to the Medical College Hospital, Varanasi for medical examination and treatment. 54. Now we come to P.W. 6 Chandrika, an injured witness. He too has supported the prosecution version from beginning till end. He was also injured at the hands of dacoits as visible from his injury report noted above. He was also sent to the Medical College Hospital, Varanasi for medical examination and treatment. The scribe Ravi Shankar was his brother, who was major at that time and had passed High School in 1st Division and also he is in service. The I.O. interrogated him after his return from Varanasi. So, for this delay, neither he is responsible nor the prosecution case should be allowed to suffer. The blame goes to the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh, who was every time ensuring that the men of his caste, namely, Prem Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh, accused got the benefit of doubt and are ultimately acquitted, as he succeeded upto the stage of trial Court. In his cross-examination also, there is nothing glaring, which could lead us to believe that he was not telling the truth or he was not present on the spot. He too clearly has admitted that no dacoits had attempted to cover their faces. In para 15, he clearly admits in reply to a cross-question that the three accused facing trial, were fully identified by him during the course of dacoity. They were armed with guns. He had received injuries from a distance of 10 paces. From that place, the dacoits had fired three shots. He was interrogated on the same day i.e. 2-8-78 after his return from Varanasi. He did not accompany the dead-bodies. He has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and sec the incident. He knew Mangala from 4-5 years prior to the incident, when he was a student. Both used to take their cattle to grassy lands. He knew apart from Mangala, Sarju, Bhagwant, Raju and Mewa Gosain of that village. But he could not tell about their parentage. He has denied the suggestion that he was speaking at the instance of the police falsely. After a thread-bare analysis of his evidence, we find that he has spoken substantially truth only and he has given a correct eye-witness account. He has remained unscathed despite very grueling cross-examination. The learned trial Court was not fair in rejecting his evidence. 55. He has denied the suggestion that he was speaking at the instance of the police falsely. After a thread-bare analysis of his evidence, we find that he has spoken substantially truth only and he has given a correct eye-witness account. He has remained unscathed despite very grueling cross-examination. The learned trial Court was not fair in rejecting his evidence. 55. This way, after analysis of all the four witnesses, by us, namely P.W. 3, Keshav (injured), P.W. 5 Lalloo, who escaped injuries providentially, P.W. 4, Smt. Bhulani, the prosecutrix and P.W 6 Chandrika, another eye-witness, we find that the prosecution case is fully proved on the basis of the four testimonies given by these witnesses. Now we wish to take up the reasons given by the learned trial Court, who believed the prosecution evidence to this extent that a dacoity was committed, in which several persons had received injuries and 4-5 persons died therefore, the factum of dacoity and in juries in closely deaths went undisputed. The only dispute was with regard to the involvement of the present three named accused. 56. In para 10, onwards, the learned trial Court has given reasons for not believing the prosecution story. The first reason to discard the prosecution story is that the FIR appeared to be a fabricated document, which was brought into existence long after the occurrence, although Sim. Bhulani, P.W. 4 the complainant had testified that the FIR was immediately got written by her after the occurrence and P.W, TO, Girdhari Yadav, the then Head Constable posted at Adalapur has disclosed that with the said FIR, two persons, namely, Bhairon and Methai met him at 2.30 p.m. Since his was not a reporting Chowki, he directed them to go to Chunar. These persons went to Chunar as is occur ring in the statement of H.C., A.K. Sinha, P.W. 8. The FIR was also disbelieved on the ground that Smt. Bhulani was an illiterate woman and she could not give graphic details in the FIR soon after the occurrence. The learned trial Court has ob served in para 10 that "Smt. Bhulani was not in a position to direct such a narrative nor Ravi Shankar the scribe was in a position to write out such a report on the basis of such poor directions. This is a general observation. The learned trial Court has ob served in para 10 that "Smt. Bhulani was not in a position to direct such a narrative nor Ravi Shankar the scribe was in a position to write out such a report on the basis of such poor directions. This is a general observation. Questions regarding the delay of the FIR, were not put to her nor her reply was elicited. On the basis of which, it cannot be said that she was not in a position to dictate this FIR or Ravi Shankar was not in a position to write the same. Although women are soft Spoken and soft-skinned creature created by the God Almighty but it does not mean that when they make up their minds, they could not shine like Durga, Jhansi-Ki-Rani and several other widows, who fought with courage with men and outnumbered and outsmarted them. So, in fact, none could know the strength of women, physical or mental. IN fact these virtues are tested when the lady is under the grip of agony, misery and distress. Smt. Bhulani appears to be one of those ladies, who has taken cudgel in her hands, as and when circumstances demanded put their valour, stamina and make up in practice. There fore, the learned trial Court was not justified in not measuring the strength of Smt. Bhulani Devi and making a general observation that she was mentally and physically unfit to dictate the FIR of this nature. Evidence has specifically come that even the injured poisons were present at the place where the FIR was being dictated by this lady. Therefore, even that could have contributed something towards the building of the FIR. But that does not make the FIR unreliable or suffering from the vice of photographic description. 57. The police record shows that the persons, namely, Bhairon and Methai Lal had brought the FIR at the police station. On the basis of which, chik report was prepared. This fact is also supported even by the partisan witness like the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh in his testimony. 58. Another reason for disbelieving the testimony of Smt. Bhulani Devi is that Girdhari Yadav, P.W 10, was not examined by the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh under Section 161, Cr. P.C. This is a fault of the I.O. Girdhari Yadav played a very important role in this prosecution story. 58. Another reason for disbelieving the testimony of Smt. Bhulani Devi is that Girdhari Yadav, P.W 10, was not examined by the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh under Section 161, Cr. P.C. This is a fault of the I.O. Girdhari Yadav played a very important role in this prosecution story. At about 2.30 a.m., Bhairon and Methai Lal met him with an FIR. He directed them towards P.S. Chunar and himself arranged for a truck and went to the spot and he collected 8 seriously injured persons and brought them to S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. After ensuring First Aid and medical examination at S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, he returned again to the spot, where the dead-bodies were entrusted to him by the I.O. for post-mortem examination. Thus Girdhari Yadav was available virtually at all the times to the I.O. Sri K.N. Singh. But still he did not interrogate him. So, this was his misconduct or his clever act to favour his caste men, who were accused in this ease, whatsoever may be the reason, which weighed with the I.O. for not interrogating Girdhari Yadav. But the statements of Girdhari Yadav and Smt. Bhulani Yadav goes to the roots of the case and they cannot be ignored by this Court. 59. Another reason given by the learned trial Court is that even in the charge-sheet. Exhibit Ka-42, the name of Girdhari Yadav, has not been cited as a witness. So is should be inferred that he was not present on the spot or he did not play any role in this murderous drama. His role or statement it should be inferred that he was not present on the spot or he did not play any role in this murderous drama. His role or statement has not been disputed even by the learned Counsel for the accused. It has not been even stated that he was not telling the truth. In para 10, in the statement of Girdhari Yadav, a very vigilant statement has been made that he was shown the FIR by Bhraion and Methai Lal at 2.30 a.m. So simply because the I.O. tried to help in destroying the prosecution case in favour of the accused by not inter rogation the mattered persons, who played a very vital role in this case, the entire prosecution case cannot be dumped in a waste-bin as done by the learned trial Court. 60. 60. Another reason assigned by the learned trial Court for disbelieving this FIR is that its scribe was not examined by the prosecution. We do not think that it was in any way capable of destroying the prosecution case because its author and owner of its contents Smt. Bhulani has been produced by the prosecution and despite a very close scrutiny, she has stick to truth and remained unscathed. Therefore, the statement of Ravi Shankar, scribe could have only given a corroborative value to this FIR and nothing more than that. Therefore, non-production of Ravi Shankar, scribe does not militate against the verocity of the prosecution case. 61. In para 10 of this judgment, the learned trial Court has given instance of some intrinsic materials, which indicate that the FIR was pre-clocked (ante timed). The learned trial Court has admitted that it is true that P.W. 8 Sri A.K. Sinha then Head Constable and P.W. 11, Sri K.N. Singh, then S.H.O. had testified that the FIR was prepared at 6.15 a.m. on 2-8-78. But it is equally true that the rejection of none of them is justified. P.W. 8 Sri A.K. Sinha has disclosed that the First Information Report was sent to the Magistrate on 3-8-78. But the learned trial Court had not given any reason as to why the FIR was sent on the next day. But he has remarked that it was produced before the Circle Officer on 7-8-78. For this fault of the office of the police, the prosecution cannot be blamed. 62. Another reason given by the learned trial Court was that the copy of the FIR should have been sent alongwith special report through Kalpanath Yadav, who took the Dak. The learned trial Court found to prudent reason for explaining this lapse. He has noted that it was due to the negligence of Sri A.K. Sinha. Head Constable. He has discarded the statement of Sri K.N. Singh on the ground that its copy should not have been retained by him. Rather, it should have been sent alongwith the special report. But he has not accepted his explanation that this Constable carrying normal Dak might have left for Mirzapur, a little earlier. There was no reason to disbelieve this explanation. But all the same, the learned trial Court found that this explanation was false and imprudent. This observation was not justified. 63. But he has not accepted his explanation that this Constable carrying normal Dak might have left for Mirzapur, a little earlier. There was no reason to disbelieve this explanation. But all the same, the learned trial Court found that this explanation was false and imprudent. This observation was not justified. 63. Another reason given by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the prosecution case is that two sets of inks were used in preparing the Panchayatnama. But unfortunately no such suggestion was made to P.W. 2 Thakur Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh, S.I., who was assisting Sri K.N. Singh in the investigation. Regarding the use of different inks, not even a single question was put as that was not inadvertent mistake, rather a calculated device to ensure that proper explanation might not come from him. For this clever omission on the part of the learned cross-examiner, the prosecution case has been damaged at the hands of the learned trial Court, which does not appear to be ration ale approach, rather, it can be said to be a perverse approach and no prudent man can draw such a conclusion. The learned trial Court has tried to discover some other infirmities also in the prosecution case on account of certain omissions and contradictions in the performance of the duties of the police officer, whose sovereign head was Sri K.N. Singh, who was bent upon spoiling the prosecution case and creating a favorable ground for the accused, who were incidentally members of his own caste. The first reason assigned was that the FIR did not accompany the dead-body for autopsy purposes. The explanation given by Sri K.N. Singh has neither been mentioned nor he has been cross-examined. Therefore, this is no infirmity at all. Another infirmity discovered by the learned trial Court is that Bhairon and Methai Lal, who had brought the FIR firstly to Girdhari and secondly, to the police station, wherefrom Sri K.N. Singh and Sri A.K. Sinha. Head Constable prepared the documents, the presence of these witnesses has also been mentioned in the G.D. and not disputed. Then it was the legal duty of Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. to interrogate them under Section 161, Cr. P.C., which he did not do. For that, the prosecution cannot be blamed. The Parchas of the case diary were received in the police office on or after 20-10-78. Then it was the legal duty of Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. to interrogate them under Section 161, Cr. P.C., which he did not do. For that, the prosecution cannot be blamed. The Parchas of the case diary were received in the police office on or after 20-10-78. For this also, the concerned police officials at different levels, were responsible and not the prosecution and the complainant. In fact, the Dak Bahi of the police office had not been produced to show as to on which date these documents were dispatched from the police station and when they had reached the police office and perhaps this was the reason why these documents were purposely withheld when the bail Application of accused Rang Bahadur Singh was under consideration on 29-9-78. But it will not be safe to infer that by that time, the P.Ws. had not been interrogated at all because no such suggestion was made to Sri K.N. Singh of this nature. According to the learned trial Court "there is nothing to explain such a bundle of serious infirmities." This statement is bereft of any support from the record. 64. Further the learned trial Court at page 15 of his judgment, has referred to a circumstance that after the arrest of Vijay Kali Shankar in between the night of 2-3/8/78, Vijay Kali Shankar Mishra, a notorious outlaw, provided some clues. But without any basis the learned trial Court has observed as follows:- "it is obvious that he got accused Rang Bahadur Singh, Prem Singh and one Baba Singh named in the written report. Consequently, it is further obvious that the first information report was not merely preclocked but ante-dated also further because there was no other congizable case at the said police station on the said day." We think these generalizations and observations may have given by some subjective pleasure to the learned trial Court. But it does not get support from the evidence on the record. More, so, for these omissions, the prosecution, as such, could not be blamed and the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be drawn by a prudent man like a Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge of higher judiciary. Therefore, these abnoxious and unmerited conclusions have got to be struck down. 65. More, so, for these omissions, the prosecution, as such, could not be blamed and the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be drawn by a prudent man like a Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge of higher judiciary. Therefore, these abnoxious and unmerited conclusions have got to be struck down. 65. In para 11, the learned trial Court found that there was no sufficient light for the purpose of proper identification of the dacoits. The existence of torches, lantern and burning puals were not disbelieved by the learned trial Court. But instead of one lantern, two lanterns have been mentioned in Exhibit Ka-22 and that has been found sufficient but the learned trial Court to discard the entire evidence on the point of light. This was not a correct and rational approach. We discard not only the approach but the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court as totally perverse and unmerited as no prudent man sitting in the chair of the Sessions Judge could normally draw. 66. One witness Ram Lakshman had not been produced by the prosecution, although he was named in the charge-sheet. On this basis, the learned trial Court has observed. "He has been withheld by the prosecution without any prudent justification." This was the fault of the prosecutor concerned and not of the complainant. But other witnesses testimonies cannot be disbelieved, who saw Ram Lakshman putting the pual on the fire. Their evidence was equally substantive and should have been believed. But the learned trial Court has missed to realize its importance and simply because Ram Lakshman was not produced, the entire evidence regarding the existence of light, has been disbelieved for no earthly reasons. Thus this conclusion of the learned trial Court that there was no sufficient light, was totally unmerited and bereft of the supporting evidence on the record. 67. In para 12 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has found fault with P.W. 11 Sri K.N. Singh for not arresting the accused persons or raiding their houses immediately and that was done on this 4th August, 1978. There is one masterly statement given by Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. in para 1 of the cross-examination that he had planted his informants and his constables to locate the accused and the goods. Even otherwise, since the accused has their houses within half km. There is one masterly statement given by Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. in para 1 of the cross-examination that he had planted his informants and his constables to locate the accused and the goods. Even otherwise, since the accused has their houses within half km. from the place of occurrence, normally after committing such a heinous crime, no accused would be available to their houses. So, it would have been a worthless effort to raid their houses on the same day. Sri K.N. Singh, I.O. banked upon the informers for this job. So, this could not be a proper justification for discarding the prosecution case, as done by the learned trial Court in para 12 of the judgment. In the cross-examination, the aforesaid statement has not been challenged. It does not appear to be a prudent act on the part of the I.O. Not only this, a large number of higher police officials went on inspecting the spot on 2-8-78. The I.O. was left with a very little time available to do his normal job because showing due courtesy to this higher bosses in the police department was also an act of importance. Without saying nothing against these higher police authorities, we can observe that wittingly or unwittingly the arrival of these persons had disturbed the routine functioning of the police officials on the spot. The learned trail Court had mentioned the names of the WPs. in the Police Deptt. in para 12 of the judgment. But he has drawn a wrong conclusion, which is unsustainable. 68. In para 13, learned trial Court has laboriously made efforts to dislodge the replacement of Baba Giri for Baba Singh and has found it be a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. He has discarded the prosecution version that Baba Giri was also known as Baba Gosain in the Kutumbh Register, this alias has not been mentioned. Therefore, he has said that Mangala Giri has been implicated in order to save Baba Singh, of the same village due to reasons best known to the I.O. We have already dealt with this aspect of the case earlier. Here we want to say only this much that the conclusion drawn by the learned trail Court in para 13 of his judgment, is totally unsustainable. 69. Here we want to say only this much that the conclusion drawn by the learned trail Court in para 13 of his judgment, is totally unsustainable. 69. In para 14, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground that the known accused had not concealed their faces. We have dealt with this aspect of the case earlier. Here we want to reiterate that criminals have be come dare devils and they do not have any fear from law. That is why the effort to conceal faces by wearing Dhatas or masks is now very stale and it is seldom applied. Hence the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in para 14 of the judgment are not correct and sustainable. 70. In para 15, the learned trial Court has observed that Ram Lakshman was not murdered by the dacoits. Therefore, it should be inferred that the prosecution case is not correct. We do not agree, with this conclusion. He obeyed them like a domicile pet animal, hence escaped this wrath of the dacoits. 71. On para 16, the learned trial Court has found existence of prior enmity between Rang Bahadur and the deceased Rama Shankar relating to some plots and on this ground he has said that he has been falsely implicated. Unfortunately at no place in the judgment of the trial Court we find even a single sentence that the wit nesses examined by the prosecution had neither opportunity nor sufficient light to identify the culprits. Therefore, non-production of one of the witnesses like Ram Lakshman could not be said to be a fatal flaw. Failure to interrogate P.W. 3, Keshav by Sri K.N. Singh, was also taken exception to by the learned trial Court and that founded the last argument of the learned trial Court for discarding the prosecution case. We find that this observation is totally unmerited. 72. A thread bare analysis of the en tire evidence and circumstances on the record leads us to believe that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused named and none of the reasons either severally or jointly or collectively given by the learned trial Judge for acquit ting the accused can be said to justified for discarding the eye-witnesses accounts given by the four witnesses and other circumstances like medical evidence, prompt FIR etc. So, we conclude that the learned trial Court's approach is perverse and un sustainable because no prudent man sit ting in the position of a Sessions Judge could draw such conclusion on the basis of evidence on the record. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. 73. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court dated 13th June, 1980 and allow this appeal. 74. We find that a very serious crime has been committed by the accused in league with others, resulting in 5 deaths and injuries to 12 persons. Lethal weapons were freely used for carrying out the objective of the accused. Despite presence of abundant light, these dare devils took law in their own hands. Therefore, they deserve to be adultery punished. 75. We, therefore, hold the accused respondents namely, Rang Bahadur Singh, Mangala Giri and Prem Singh guilty on the charge under Section 396, IPC. They are convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on the aforesaid charge. They are on bails. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence by the C.J.M. concerned by issuing non-bailable warrants against term and also notice to the sureties in order to ensure the presence of these accused at the earliest. After sending the accused respondents aforesaid, to jail he shall send a compliance report to this Court within a month. Appeal allowed.