B. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THESE are two connected appeals against the judgment and order dated 20-6-1980 passed by Sri V. V. Singh, the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S. T. No. 57 of 1977 State v. Sahab Singh and S. T. No. 88 of 1987 State v. Rajendra and others, whereby he convicted Rajendra Singh accused-appellant of the offence under Section 395 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and further convicted him of the offence under Section 384 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and convicted the accused-appellants Jaihendra Singh, Karey Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Kamal Singh and Zafar Uddin alias Zafar of the offence under Section 395 I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and further convicted them of the offence under Section 384/34 I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences were made concurrent in the case of each accused. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story is as follows :there was a dispute about some land between Rajendra Singh accused appellant and the informant Misri Lal. Litigation was also pending and there was acute enmity. One Amar Singh tried to get the dispute compromised. On 14-10-1975, Rajendra Singh accused appellant came to the house of Misri Lal informant along with Ram Kumar Pachauri and informed that Amar Singh has called him for conciliation talks on 17-10-1975. On 17-10-1975 Misri Lal informant along with his son Umesh Chandra injured went to village Barhesara where Amar Singh resided. When they reached Barhesara, Amar Singh informed that he had no time for these talks on that date and had also intimated Rajendra Singh accused appellant not to come. Thereupon, Misri lal informant and Umesh Chandra injured started back for their village on their bicycles. When they reached near the boundary of village Beelpura and Barhesara at about 11 a. m. , 12 or 13 persons came out of the plot adjoining the rasta. Of these Jaihendra and Karey Faquir accused had country made pistols with them while Rajendra Singh accused had a knife, Kamal accused had a spear and Zafar, Karey Jath, Bhagwan Singh and other accused had lathis with them. Of these Jaihendra and Karey Faquir accused had country made pistols with them while Rajendra Singh accused had a knife, Kamal accused had a spear and Zafar, Karey Jath, Bhagwan Singh and other accused had lathis with them. The accused surrounded the informant Misri Lal and his son Umesh Chandra injured and forced them to come down from the bicycles. Rajendra Singh accused threatened them with a knife and asked Misri Lal informant to put thumb impression on two blank stamp papers. When Misri Lal informant refused, Karey Faquir fired a shot at Misri Lal informant, which, however did not hit Misri Lal informant. When Jaihendra Singh aroused attempted to fire shot on Misri Lal informant Umesh Chandra injured snatched the knife wielded by Rajendra Singh accused, Umesh Chandra attacked Jaihendra accused with this knife; thereupon all the accused attacked the two victims and caused them injuries. The victims raised alarm. Maharaj Singh resident of Vijauli was on that day coming to his village. Brahma Deo along with Munshi and Allahnur were going to Barhesara. They as also other persons of the neighbourhood reached the place of the occurrence and saw the accused causing injuries to Misri Lal informant and Umesh injured. When they tried to intervene the accused threatened them with dire consequences. After the two victims fell down, Rajendra Singh accused obtained the thumb impressionsof Misri lal informant on two blank stamp papers. The accused also took the two bicycles, a wrist watch of Umesh injured, Jhola and Rs. 25. 00 in cash from the victims and went away. Witnesses approached the victims. Maharaj Singh proceeded to village Vijauli and gave information of the incident to Jai Prakash, brother of Misri Lal informant and other relatives. Meanwhile the villagers of Beelpura took the two injured on a bullock-cart to Bijauli. On the way to Bijauli, Jai Prakash met them. At Bijauli, Misri Lal informant dictated the written F. I. R. Ex. Ka-1 to Sri Jai Prakash and then went to the police station Dadon and lodged it there at 3-15 P. M. the same day. ( 3 ) THE medical examination of Misri Lal injured was made by Dr. B. Singh Dhariwal on 17-10-1975 at 4. 15 p. m. at Zila Parishad Dispensary, Badon. He found the following injuries on his person :1. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the outer of forehead 5. ( 3 ) THE medical examination of Misri Lal injured was made by Dr. B. Singh Dhariwal on 17-10-1975 at 4. 15 p. m. at Zila Parishad Dispensary, Badon. He found the following injuries on his person :1. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/6" x scalp deep on the outer of forehead 5. 5" above from the left ear. 2. Incised wound 1. 5" x 1/6" x muscle deep on the left side of face 1/4" below from outer corner of the left eye - Wound was comma shaped. 3. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep with traumatic swelling on the left ear in between pinna and ear lobule. ( 4 ) LACERATED wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the left ear 1/2" above from injury No. 3. ( 5 ) TRAUMATIC Swelling 3" x 2" and 2" x 11/2" on the left side back just 1" below from the left shoulder and about it, there is abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the left shoulder. ( 6 ) COMPLAINT of pain in the left side chest. ( 7 ) INCISED wound 3/4" x 1/6" muscle deep on the back of left forearm with traumatic swelling on the whole of left fore arm. Advised X-ray. ( 8 ) LACERATED wound 1/2" x 1/6" x skin deep on the 2nd digit of left index finger. ( 9 ) INCISED wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the medial side of the thumb at the joint of II digit of right thumb. ( 10 ) TRAUMATIC swelling 2" x 1-1/2" on the top of right shoulder. In his opinion injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 were caused by hard blunt weapon and injury Nos. 2, 7 and 9 were caused by sharp weapon and all the injuries were simple except injury No. 7 which was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. The duration was fresh. 4. Umesh Chandra injured was medically examined by the same doctor at the said hospital the same day at 5. 00 p. m. He found the following injuries on his person:1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the right side head 3" above from the right ear. 2. Traumatic swelling 4" x 2" on the left elbow, On its outer side, there is another Traumatic swelling 2" x 2" x 1/4" away from the above mentioned injury. 00 p. m. He found the following injuries on his person:1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the right side head 3" above from the right ear. 2. Traumatic swelling 4" x 2" on the left elbow, On its outer side, there is another Traumatic swelling 2" x 2" x 1/4" away from the above mentioned injury. There is multiple Traumatic swelling on the whole of left fore arm. Ad. X-ray. 3. Multiple traumatic swelling on the whole of right arm and upper 1/3" of the right forearm Ad. X-ray right arm and right elbow joints. 4. Traumatic swelling on the whole of right thumb. 5. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/5" x bone deep on the left leg anterior aspect 9" below from the left knee joint. 6. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the right leg anterior aspect 5. 5" above from the ankle joint. There are two traumatic swellings. 1. 5" above injury. 7. Traumatic swelling 5" x 2" on the left side back on scapula and traumatic swelling 4" x 2" on the side 1/2" away from the above mentioned injury. 8. Two traumatic swelling 3" x 2" x 3-1/2" x 2" on the back of right side back at the level of thoracic region. All the injuries were caused by hard blunt object except injury No. 5 which is caused by sharp weapon. Nature - All injuries are simple except injuries No. 2 and 3 which are kept under observation Ad. X-ray, Duration fresh. 5. X-ray of Umesh Chandra injured showed fracture at lower end of ulna bone of left arm. Its supplementary report was on record. 5a. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 395, 395/97, 383, 383/34, 329 and 329/34 against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. They claimed to have been falsely implicateddue to enmity. Jaihendra Singh accused -appellant claimed that he was beaten by Misri Lal and the police has falsely prosecuted him. 6. At the trial, prosecution examined Mishri Lal P. W. 1, Umesh Chandra P. W. 2, Maharaj Singh P. W. 5 and Brahma Deo P. W. 6 as eye witnesses. Rest of the evidence was formal. 7. Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant was medically examined by Dr. Y. M. Swaroop on 17-10-1975 at 6 p. m. at the Primary Health Centre, Atrauli. 6. At the trial, prosecution examined Mishri Lal P. W. 1, Umesh Chandra P. W. 2, Maharaj Singh P. W. 5 and Brahma Deo P. W. 6 as eye witnesses. Rest of the evidence was formal. 7. Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant was medically examined by Dr. Y. M. Swaroop on 17-10-1975 at 6 p. m. at the Primary Health Centre, Atrauli. He found the following injury on his person :1. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on top of right shoulder reddish blue. 2. Incised wound 3. 5 cm x 1 cm depth not probed on right side back 17 cm below right arm pit on the post auxiliary line transversely. Advised X-ray. 3. Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed on right lower chest 3. 5 cm away the injury No. 2. Advised X-ray. 4. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm depth on rt. buttock 3 cm backward from rt. greater trochanter of the rt. femur. In his opinion, the injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object while remaining injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration was about half day old. 8. Dr. Y. M. Swaroop was examined by the defence as D. W. 1 to prove the injury report of Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant. 9. Jaihendra Singh accused lodged a written F. I. R. at the police station on 1-11-1975 at 9. 30 p. m. against Mishri Lal and 6 others under Sections 147, 148 and 307 I. P. C. 10. 8. Dr. Y. M. Swaroop was examined by the defence as D. W. 1 to prove the injury report of Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant. 9. Jaihendra Singh accused lodged a written F. I. R. at the police station on 1-11-1975 at 9. 30 p. m. against Mishri Lal and 6 others under Sections 147, 148 and 307 I. P. C. 10. The learned sessions Judge found that the medical evidence from the side of the prosecution was believable and that the accused did not deny that Mishri Lal informant and Umesh Chandra injured received injuries at the time of occurrence as alleged, that it has been suggested on behalf of the accused that the injuries were caused to these two witnesses by some villagers who tried to save Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant who was being beaten by Mishri Lal informant, Umesh, Naresh, Banwari and others, that the place of occurrence has been proved by the statement of the four eyewitnesses and it is also not disputed, that the prosecution has not disputed that Jaihendra accused-appellant received injuries at the time of occurrence and was confined in the hospital and that the prosecution has proved that Jaihendra accused-appellant received injuries at the time of occurrence and was confined in the hospital and that the prosecution has proved that Jaihendra accused-appellant received injuries when Umesh Chandra inflicted knife blows to him in order to defend his father. He also found that Rajendra Singh accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that Raj Kumar Pachauri and he himself came for compromise in a case under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and it was agreed that Amar Singh of Baresara would get the matter compromised. He took the view that in face of this admission there is no reason to doubt the statement of Mishri Lal P. W. 1 and Umesh Chandra P. W. 2 about the reasons for the presence of the injured at the place of occurrence. He also held that Mishri Lal informant and Umesh Chandra injured were beaten and robbed and the thumb impressions of Mishri Lal informant were obtained on blank papers. He found the presence and participation of Jaihendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Karey Singh, Zafar Uddin and Bhagwan Singh as also Kamal Singh accused-appellant established. He also held that Mishri Lal informant and Umesh Chandra injured were beaten and robbed and the thumb impressions of Mishri Lal informant were obtained on blank papers. He found the presence and participation of Jaihendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Karey Singh, Zafar Uddin and Bhagwan Singh as also Kamal Singh accused-appellant established. He was of the view that the provision of Section 397 I. P. C. was not attracted and that the offence under S. 329 I. P. C. was also not made out. He consequently, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as aforesaid and acquitted Idris Khan, Ganga Saran, Hoti and Sahab Singh co-accused of the offences. ( 11 ) HENCE these appeals have been preferred and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 12 ) DURING the pendency of these appeals Bhagwan Singh accused-appellant of Cri. Appeal No. 1410 of 1980 and Rajendra Singh and Kamal accused-appellants of Cri. Appeal No. 1508 of 1980 have died and consequently these appeals have abated to their respective extent. ( 13 ) IN Crl. Appeal No. 1410 of 1980, Karey Singh accused-appellant had moved an application for plea bargain before this Court stating therein that he wants to throw himself at the mercy of this Court with the prayer that instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment, the sentence may be altered to sentence of fine and period of imprisonment for which he has alreadyundergone in jail. As a matter of fact, in the affidavit filed in this plea bargain application, there is no categorical admission of guilt anywhere. ( 14 ) BEFORE this court, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant Karey Jath, pointed out that in his statement on oath at the trial, Brahma Deo P. W. 6 did not name him and named only three out of whom only Jaihendra accused alone is before this Court. As a matter of fact, this witness named four persons Rajendra, Jaihendra, Kare Faquir and Kamal and stated that he was not remembering the names of others. He was resident of village Bijauli. He pointed out that Misri Lal P. W. 1 was resident of village Bijauli. His arguments are that there was no witness of the locality and are of the same faction and so have given evidence against his client. He also claimed that Maharaj Singh P. W. 5 is also resident of Bijauli. He was resident of village Bijauli. He pointed out that Misri Lal P. W. 1 was resident of village Bijauli. His arguments are that there was no witness of the locality and are of the same faction and so have given evidence against his client. He also claimed that Maharaj Singh P. W. 5 is also resident of Bijauli. He also argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and their evidence was not corroborated. It was also argued that that the prosecution story is not acceptable as there was no injury caused by Katta and no injury of Ballam. If there was no firearm injury, there was an explanation given for it. There were present sharp weapon injuries on the bodies of both the prosecution witnesses. So the argument cannot stand. Then it was argued that the injuries No. 2, 7, 9 of Misri Lal were not explained when on the prosecution case, the knife had been snatched away from Rajendra accused by his son. The argument too is misconceived because it presumed that the knife was snatched before any injury could be caused by it. Kare Singh accused-appellant has been named by as many as three witnesses namely Misri Lal, Umesh Chandra and Maharaj Singh and there was no reason to doubt this nomination in the circumstances of the case. The ocular testimony has been corroborated by medical evidence and the admitted and established circumstances of the case. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant Kare Jath has then prayed that the sentence of the imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him in this case and in lieu thereof some fine may be imposed. He has claimed that the injuries of both prosecution injured were simple. This claim was wrong. The supplementary report regarding Umesh Kumar injured showed fracture of lower end of Ulna bone of left arm. He has relied on the circumstances that the occurrence was of the year 1975 and that the accused appellant Kare Singh had suffered much because of this litigation and also remained in jail for months. No material has been placed before this Court to indicate the exact period of time during which he has been in jail as an undertrial and as a convict but that is besides the point. The sentence for an offence is always the discretion of the court. No material has been placed before this Court to indicate the exact period of time during which he has been in jail as an undertrial and as a convict but that is besides the point. The sentence for an offence is always the discretion of the court. A reference to the judgment of the trial court showed that it had already taken the most lenient view possible. He considered the argument that Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant also received injuries and was confined in hospital for several days, that the main object of the accused-persons was to obtain thumb-impression of Mishri Lal on stamped-blank paper, that dacoity (i. e. theft as distinguished from extortion) was not the primary object of the accused persons, that while committing the offence some of the accused appeared to have taken in their mind to obtain physical gain (i. e. theft), that as regard the document which was extracted as valuable security it had not yet seen the light of the day. He also considered that it has been suggested by the prosecution that it was an agreement, that if any agreement was obtained in 1975, it could not be enforced in the year 1980 (when the learned sessions Judge pronounced his judgment), in a Court of law because of limitation, that there is also some doubt i. e. likelihood that Mishri Lal informant purchased the land of Rajendra Singh accused-appellant with promise to sell it back and did not respect the oral assurance given by him and it appeared that the accused thought that Mishri Lal is being dishonest and took the law into their own hands. The normal sentence in a case of dacoity is rigorous imprisonment for five to seven years but considering all these circumstances aforesaid placed before the learned Sessions Judge he passed this sentence of just 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 I. P. C. and just 1 year for the offence under Section 384 I. P. C. and made both sentences concurrent under the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, there is no good ground to reduce the sentence of any of the surviving accused-appellant to a lesser term or to substitute it by any amount of fine. The offence of dacoity whether it be an aggravatedform of theft or an aggravated form of extortion could not be encouraged. The offence of dacoity whether it be an aggravatedform of theft or an aggravated form of extortion could not be encouraged. A liberal attitude cannot be taken in the regard to such offences on any sentencing policy. ( 16 ) COMING to Jaihendra Singh and Zafar Uddin accused-appellants their learned counsel did not give any application of plea bargain at any stage. At the time of argument, their learned counsel claimed that they did not call for any compromise nor did they meet in the way. He relied on the admission of the I. O. that he received a telegram from Jaihendra accused about the occurrence. However, it is to be noted that in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , Jaihendra Singh accused-appellant did not give any narration of the defence version of facts as they were beyond stating "hamey Mara Pita. Mishri Lal ne mara. Hamarey Ooper police ne mokadma chala diya" and claiming that witnesses were relatives of the Pradhan and litigation has been taking place with them. No witnesses have been examined by any of these two accused to give the defence version on oath. ( 17 ) IT was argued further by the counsel that the prosecution F. I. R. was delayed. It was said that the occurrence took place on 11. 00 a. m. and the F. I. R. has been lodged at 3. 15 p. m. It has then been pointed out that Mishri Lal P. W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that bullock cart came after 10 minutes of the occurrence and they reached Bijauli in 25 or 30 minutes and stayed at Bijauli for 1 to 11/2 hoours and it took them 2 or 2. 5 hours to reach the police station. It has also been pointed out that the F. I. R. was lodged at 3. 15 p. m. as per police records and claimed that the informant Mishri Lal P. W. 1 testified in cross-examination that he got the F. I. R. written at 1 p. m. or a little before that and argued that this throws doubt on the prosecution FIR. This argument is misconceived. In this case a written F. I. R. has been lodged at the police station and in the examination-in-chief, the witness has been stated that he got the written F. I. R. scribed at Bijauli. This argument is misconceived. In this case a written F. I. R. has been lodged at the police station and in the examination-in-chief, the witness has been stated that he got the written F. I. R. scribed at Bijauli. So the time given in the cross examination is that of the scribing of the F. I. R. and thus, there is no contradiction between his testimony and the time of the lodging of the F. I. R. as per police record. The F. I. R. was lodged with reasonable promptitude. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for these accused-appellants has also pointed out that Umesh Chandra P. W. 2 stated in his examination-in-chief that Rajendra had knife, Jaihendra and Karey Faquir were having Kattas, that Hoti was having Ballam and rest had Lathi Danda and then he said that Kamal had Ballam. Nothing revolves on this part of his testimony because Rajendra Singh and Kamal accused appellants both have died during the pendency of this appeal and Karey Faquir had died during the pendency of the trial. 18a. No further argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for Jaihendra and Zafar Uddin accused-appellants about the merits of the case. The learned sessions Judge has discussed the evidence and material circumstances and acting continuously convicted only those against whom there was available sufficient evidence totally free from doubt. The learned counsel then prayed that the sentence of Jaihendra Singh and Zafar Uddin be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial and as a convict and that some fine may be imposed in lieu thereof. ( 19 ) IN my view, the sentence awarded by the learned sessions Judge was by no means excessive and it will send a wrong massage to the society if in such cases the sentence which is already on the lesser side is further reduced. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 1980 is dismissed to the extent of Karey accused-appellant. His conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 395 and 384/34 I. P. C. are maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 1980 is dismissed to the extent of Jaihendra Singh and Zafar Uddin accused-appellants. Their conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 395 and 384/34 I. P. C. are maintained. Crl. His conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 395 and 384/34 I. P. C. are maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 1980 is dismissed to the extent of Jaihendra Singh and Zafar Uddin accused-appellants. Their conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 395 and 384/34 I. P. C. are maintained. Crl. Appeal No. 1410 of 1980 has already abated to the extent of Bhagwan Singh accused-appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 1980 has similarly abated to the extent of Rajendra Singh and Kamal Singh accused-appellants. ( 21 ) KAREY Singh accused-appellant is on bail from this court. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be arrested forthwith and sent to the district jail concerned to serve out his sentence according to law. ( 22 ) JAIHENDRA Singh and Zafar Uddin alias Zafar accused-appellants are already in jail custodyafter cancelling of their bail from this Court. They shall serve out the remaining part of their sentence according to law. ( 23 ) LET a copy of this judgment be sent by the registry to the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned at once for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted by the Sessions Judge concerned to this Court within 15 days from today. Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 1980 be listed again before this Bench on 26th July 99 in Chambers at 1. 30 p. m. for orders along with the compliance reports from the Addl. Sessions Judge Concerned. Appeal dismissed. .