Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant filed this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7-8-1996 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 246/91, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 395/412, IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine to Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he will have to further undergo RI for one year. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for seven years under Section 412, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default he will have to further undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were however ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief as stated that on 19-7-1999 at about 7.30 p.m. the Informant, Father Philip Tirkey along with Father Kornilious Baxla, brother Supirian Kujur and brother Elias Minj went to the Dinning Hall to have their dinner. At that time the main gate of the Mission School was half opened and at the same place children of the Mission School were taught in the emergency light. Suddenly at about 3 p.m. Sukhdeo Oraon and Suresh Oraon armed with pistols entered into the Dinning Hall with the teacher Tobias Kujur who was teaching the students. They took out a pistol and told them to keep and asked them not to raise any alarm. The Informant was taken to his room at the point of pistol and he was asked to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-and thereafter he opened his safe out of fear and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- but the miscreants were not satisfied with the said amount and they began to assault him and he was taken to the adjacent room. He identified the accused Bihans Oraon who had been a student of Missin School and was rusticated in the year 1989. He was armed with pistol. The Informant also identified the appellant Bicha Oraon who was standing at the Main gate with a bomb in his hand. There was also miscreants standing at the gate of Kitchen who were holding dagger. The informant went to the dinning hall and accused Sukhdeo Oraon took father Cornilius Barla to his room at the point of his pistol. He was assaulted by the miscreants with rod. There was also miscreants standing at the gate of Kitchen who were holding dagger. The informant went to the dinning hall and accused Sukhdeo Oraon took father Cornilius Barla to his room at the point of his pistol. He was assaulted by the miscreants with rod. The accused-persons broke open the lock of the room and looted Rs. 7,000/- and other articles from possession of father Cornilius Barla. He was thereafter brought to the dinning hall. Again the informant was called and asked to sit in front of the main grill of the Verandah and he saw two dacoits roaming there. The dacoits continued looting for the long time by entering into different rooms. They also assaulted Brother Sipirium on his head by rod and snatched a sum of Rs.200/- and other articles from his possession. The miscreants also looted away the articles belonging to the teacher Pramila from her room. The miscreants thereafter took the motor-cycle bearing No. BPN 1729 belonging to the Informant. The Informant also asked Sister Kaprini to open the gate and thereafter the decoits snatched a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from her possession and other articles belonging to her. The miscreants had brought a Vespa Scooter which was used in the commission of dacoity and after looting away the articles and money, the dacoits fled away with the motor-cycle and the scooter towards south. During the period of dacoity, it was raining heavily. The victims including the informant identified the accused-persons and also claimed to identify unknown dacoits if they were brought before them. 3. FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of the Informant. The appellant along with others are named in the FIR who were said to be identified at the time of dacoity. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and others for the offences under Sections 395/412, IPC. The appellant was produced before the trial Court. The charge under Sections 395/412, IPC was framed which was denied by the appellant. 4. The witnesses were examined in the trial Court. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as mentioned above by the impugned judgment. 5. The appellant was produced before the trial Court. The charge under Sections 395/412, IPC was framed which was denied by the appellant. 4. The witnesses were examined in the trial Court. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as mentioned above by the impugned judgment. 5. On being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence and the appellant was not identified during the commission of dacoity. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant submitted that the indentification of the appellant Bicha Oraon in the manner as alleged is very suspicious in view of the fact that the said night was dark and it was heavy raining as well as the appellant, Bicha Oraon said to have been identified near the gate and so it was hot possible for the Informant and other witnesses to identify him from the room. It is also submitted that the accused Bicha Oraon, the sole appellant was not found for committing overt act during the commission of dacoity rather simply being standing near gate will not suffice for his participation or identification in the dacoity. 7. Before appreciating the contention of the learned Counsel on this score, I would like to mention about the admitted position that the motor-cycly BPN 1729 was recovered and seized from the house of this appellant Bicha Oraon which itself proves from the seizure list (Ext. 7/A) and the said motor-cycle was found concealed with straw-in his Dhaba. 8. PW-4, the Informant claimed to have identified this appellant, Bicha Oraon, who was possessing bomb in his hand at the relevant time. According to him, there was emergency light and in the flash of emergency light, he could have identified the miscreants including Bicha Oraon when the informant was brought on the main gate. He also claimed in his evidence that his motor-cycle No. BPN-1729 was taken away by the miscreants and the said motor-cycle was admittedly recovered from the house of this appellant. He further stated that he had also identified other articles includng the Scooter which was brought by the miscreants at the time of dacoity and all the articles were identified by him and other witnesses in the T.I.P. which was conducted by the B.D.O, Sisai. He further stated that he had also identified other articles includng the Scooter which was brought by the miscreants at the time of dacoity and all the articles were identified by him and other witnesses in the T.I.P. which was conducted by the B.D.O, Sisai. He is very specific in his cross-examination as well that there was no light but there was an emergency light and there was a distance of 35 yards from the bungalow to main gate. The distance of 35 yards is not very far-off as he claimed that Bicha Oraon, the appellant is known to him from before as he had seen him in Sisai College and so he could have easily identified the appellant Bicha Oraon in the emergency light as claimed. He further admitted that emergency light is fitted in the verandah of the Bungalow. 9. PW-9, Father Cornolious Barla also stated that there was emergency light in the Verandah when the mis-creants, Sukhdeo and Suresh Oraon entered into the room with pistol and they caught hold teacher Tobinous Kujur. According to him, the appellant, Bicha Oraon assaulted him with rod on his head, as a result of which he sustained injury. He was also treated by the doctor which finds support from the injury report (Ext.4). It appears that this witness Cornolious Barla sustained laceration on his forehead. He also deposed that he was knowing Bicha Oraon from before as he used to visit village Pandariya and the appellant is also the resident of the same village. He further deposed that Bicha Oraon, the appellant was possessing bomb in his hand. 10. PW-11, Tobious Kujur also claimed to have identified the accused-persons including Bicha Oraon. PW-13 is the doctor, who examined Cornolious Barla, Philip Tirkey and Suprein Kujur and found the injuries on their person. He proved the injury reports (Ext. 4 to 4/b). PW-14 is the Investigating Officer, who claimed to have lodged the FIR (Ext. 5). He also found injuries on the person of the witnesses who were referred for treatment. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. 11. No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the accused-persons were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. 12. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. 11. No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the accused-persons were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and they have denied the allegation. 12. Obviously, witness, Superion Kujur, the Informant, Philip Tirkey and the witness Cornnslious Barla sustained injuries on their person in course of dacoity as they were assaulted by the miscreants and they were duly examined by the doctor which finds supported by the injury reports Ext. 4 series. The seizure lists Ext. 7 and 7/A further go to prove that the looted articles were recovered and seized at the relevant time and the looted motor-cycle BPN-1729 was also recovered from the house of the appellant Bicha Oraon. It is also clear from the TI chart Ext. 8, that all the articles were put into TIP and all the witnesses including the Informant identified the articles put into TIP. The witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 who were present at the scene of the occurrence, also supported the prosecution case about committing dacoity by the miscreants. PW-4, PW-9 and PW-11 claimed to have identified Bicha Oraon, the appellant during the commission of dacoity, PW-9 is very specific in disclosing that he was assaulted by the appellant by iron rod, which also finds support from the medical evidence. The appellant, Bicha Oraon was duly identified by the witnesses including the Informant and he was known to them from before and as such the name of the appellant, Bicha Oraon also figured in the FIR at the first instance which was registered without any delay. 13. Thus, there appears no ambiguity or any doubt in anout the identificaion by the witnesses. Admittedly, there was an emergency light at the relevant time and so they could have easily identified the known person in the emergency light even at a distance of 30 to 35 yards. Moreover, Bicha Oraon, the appellant said to have assaulted the witnesses PW-9 and so there will be no doubt about his identification to this appellant. It is clear that all the material witnesses including the Informant have been cross-examined at length, but nothing fruitful could have been been elicited from their evidence. Moreover, there is no reason as to why the appellant would be falsely implicated. It is clear that all the material witnesses including the Informant have been cross-examined at length, but nothing fruitful could have been been elicited from their evidence. Moreover, there is no reason as to why the appellant would be falsely implicated. Not a single chit of paper nor any evidence to this score about the enmity, if any, has been brought on the record from the side of the defence. Hence, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has got no substance and it is not sustainable. 14. Thus, considering the whole facts and circumstances coupled with the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has fully established the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, there is no hesitation in hoiding that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence charged by the impugned judgment which is accordingly confirmed. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is dismissed.