Judgment Prabahat Kumar Sinha and Chandra Mohan Prasad JJ. 1. The sole appellant stands convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (The Code in short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, and as coming out of the fardbayan of Dina Nath Sharma (Exhibit-5) recorded at the place of occurrence on 2.6.1988 at 8.00 P.M. is that at about 5.30 P.M. the same evening while he and others were at Dalan he saw a number of persons including the appellant with fire arms in their hands, coming from Koiri Tola. The informant and others with him ran away and hid themselves behind a Peepaltree and they heard gun shots which continued for half an hour from the side of the house of Surendra Sharma, the deceased. When the incident ceased, they came and found Surendra Sharma dead with fire arm injuries, and the parents of the informant also lying injured. They were also intimated by the female inmates that a large number of people had entered into the house and had killed Surendra Sharma. The informant also found that the door of the dalan in the first floor was broken and articles on that rooms were scattered and rifle of the informant, the cartridges, and money were looted away. It was stated that the miscreants shouted slogans I.P.F. Zindabad" and fled away who, in the first information report, were termed asextremists. At the outset it may be stated, as noted in the judgment of the learned lower court also, that when charge sheet was submitted, this appellant was shown absconder but trial had commenced against nineteen other accused persons who were convicted. It was also noticed by the learned Sessions Court that an appeal so filed had been dismissed by this Court. 3. It appears that subsequently this appellant could be brought to the court and the triai commenced almost about nine years of the incident. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely entangled, being a resident of the same village, because of enmity. A suggestion was given to P.W.3 that the enmity related to the land. 5. P.Ws. 5 and 6, Ravindra Sharma and Tapeshwar Singh also were witnesses to the seizure list whereas RW.9, Dr. Arbind Prasad had conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Surendra Sharma and RW.10, Dr. A suggestion was given to P.W.3 that the enmity related to the land. 5. P.Ws. 5 and 6, Ravindra Sharma and Tapeshwar Singh also were witnesses to the seizure list whereas RW.9, Dr. Arbind Prasad had conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Surendra Sharma and RW.10, Dr. Karneshwar Biswas had examined the injuries upon the parents of the informant who are Shiv Ratan Singh, the father (P.W.3) and Sumitra Devi, the mother (P.W.4). Qaish Ahmad, RW.11 had conducted investigation whereas RWs 12 and 13 are formal witnesses, taking witness stand to prove some documents. 6. P.W.1, Vidya Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased RW.2, Hari Singh brother of P.W.3, P.W.3 and P.W.4 all have supported the prosecution case claiming that they had identified the appellant as one of the dacoits and they also identified him in the court. Out of these witnesses attention of P.Ws.1 and 2 Was drawn towards their statement before Police and were suggested that before Police they had not named the appellant. However, PW.11, the Investigating Officer, when confirmation was sought from him, said that both these witnesses had named the appellant as one of the dacoits. 7. These four witnesses who claimed to be eye-witnesses have been extensively cross-examined but no dent could be caused to their assertive evidence so far identification of the appellant was concerned. They also have fully supported the occurrence of dacoity with death of Surendra Sharma caused by firing of one of the dacoits. Indeed there is overwhelming evidence of the record to prove that a dacoity was committed in which rifle, cartridges and money were also looted and in course of the dacoity Surendra Sharma was done to death. 8. Besides those witnesses P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure list per which an empty cartridge was recovered near the dead body. He also supported that on 3.6.1988 in a search of the house of the appellant document was recovered relating to extremist organization, in his presence, and he also appended his signature upon the seizure list. He also said that the Police Officer also had seized the blood near the dead body. Likewise, P.W.6 also witness to the two seizures, has proved the signature over the seizure lists. 9. He also said that the Police Officer also had seized the blood near the dead body. Likewise, P.W.6 also witness to the two seizures, has proved the signature over the seizure lists. 9. In so far as the reason for killing Surendra Sharma is concerned, indication is provided in the evidence of RW.3 has said that the deceased had also fired from his licensed gun after which the dacoits had killed him. The witnesses also have supported that the parents of the informant were also injured with specific allegation that the father Shiv Ratan Singh was given a dagger blow. 10. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that no means of identification has come in the evidence and it was pointed out that P.W.4 had said that darkness had dawned (Paragraph 15). However, it will appear that this witness said that she had seen the body of Surendra smeared with blood which she saw when she had gone near him and in that context she said that darkness had dawned. Obviously, as per evidence the dacoity had continued for quite some time but the time of occurrence has been given to be 5.30 P.M. in summer season. Therefore, sufficient light for identification of a person particularly one belonging to the village, was there. Even P.W.1 has said (Paragraph 14) that in course of occurrence darkness had dawned but it was not complete dark. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant belonged to the same village and as per evidence of the witnesses the dacoits had not come in mask which was quite unnatural as a co- villager would definitely take precaution to conceal his identity while committing such a crime. 12. This cannot be a principle of universal application in all the cases that known person if committed an offence without taking precaution to conceal his identity, that would go to prove his false implication. To meet this point Sri G.R Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sia Ram V/s. State of Bihar; 1973 Cr. L.J. 155. To meet this point Sri G.R Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sia Ram V/s. State of Bihar; 1973 Cr. L.J. 155. The same argument was placed in that case but their Lordships observed that the argument was based on conjecture whereas there was definite evidence of the witnesses about identification and though they were interested witnesses, even partisan, but their evidences were scrutinized by the trial court and by the High Court keeping in view that position. 13. Similar arguments were made in the case of Ram Sunder Mahto V/s. State of Bihar; 2002 (4) P.L.J.R. 98 , before a Division Bench of this Court. It was observed therein that when the accused in a case of dacoity are co-villagers, the evidence on record had to be evaluated carefully but blanket acceptance of the argument that since they had not concealed their faces, the prosecution story should be doubted and benefit of that should go to the accused, might amount to giving licence to an errant co-villager to commit such a crime in the house of a neighbour, undisguised, and thereafter to get away with the aforesaid argument. It was also pointed out that such a crime might not always be committed for the sake of money, but for other reasons also. Indeed, in the judgment of the lower court it has been noticed that the main purpose for committing the crime appeared to be the looting of the fire arms and ammunitions. 14. Out of the witnesses so examined P.W.2, who also had identified the appellant and other dacoits, was at that time not in the house. He was coming to the village from elsewhere when he saw thirty to forty persons, armed with fire arms, going towards the house of the informant Dina Nath Singh. He supported the incident of dacoity and said that he had also seen the dacoits coming out of the house. The other witnesses then told him as to how Surendra Sharma was killed, and RWs. 3 and 4 injured. 15. The argument was also that the witnesses identifying the appellant were the relatives and inmates of the house. In a case of dacoity the inmates of the house are most natural witnesses. The other witnesses then told him as to how Surendra Sharma was killed, and RWs. 3 and 4 injured. 15. The argument was also that the witnesses identifying the appellant were the relatives and inmates of the house. In a case of dacoity the inmates of the house are most natural witnesses. RW.10, who had examined the injured witness, Shiv Ratan Singh, on the very next day of the occurrence, had found stab wound in his abdomen for which operation was performed upon him to save his life. The injury was grievous in nature. This fully supports the assertion of the witness that in course of dacoity he had received stab wound at the hands of the dacoits. However, no such wounds was found on.Sumitra Devi, wife of Shiv Ratan Singh though it was claimed that she was also injured by a knife. From the evidence of P.W.4 it appears that earlier both were treated at Khizersarai Hospital and were referred to better hospital from there. This finding of the doctor also strengthens the prosecution case. Finding of no knife injury on Sumitra Devi is not a point that could affect adversely the entire prosecution case. 16. RW.9, in the autopsy-report supported that the deceased had died of fire arm injury. However, in course of arguments this was not disputed that dacoity was committed in the house of Surendra Sharma and he was killed in course of that. 17. It was also pointed out that P.Ws 7 and 8 who were relatives, living in the same house though in their evidence supported the occurrence and killing of the deceased did not name any one. P.W.7 in this regard though admitted that she did not identify any one, she also said that she did not know any one in the village. P.W.8 though claimed that she knew all the persons of the village, but she also admitted that though she had seen the dacoits but she did not identify them. 18. From the prosecution evidence, taken together, it will appear that dacoits were thirty to forty in number and they were seen at different parts of the house. A woman witness cannot be supposed to be moving amongst the dacoits so that she could see each and every one of them and then make a claim about identification. 18. From the prosecution evidence, taken together, it will appear that dacoits were thirty to forty in number and they were seen at different parts of the house. A woman witness cannot be supposed to be moving amongst the dacoits so that she could see each and every one of them and then make a claim about identification. It is not unnatural that a family member, particularly a woman, would have no occasion in course of commission of such a crime, to see face of every miscreant. The prosecution side, however, has pointed out that such evidence rather strengthens the prosecution case, that the witnesses were truthful because, had not that been so, these two female inmates of the house could easily have been made to name the appellant and others as dacoits, who were identified by others. 19. Therefore, we do not find that not naming the appellant by these two witnesses in any way diminishes the reliability of the witnesses who had made identification. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that this was an act of extremists and the appellant was falsely implicated. Why this particular appellant could be falsely implicated has not been explained either by the learned counsel for the appellant, nor in the evidence. No enmity has been established rather P.W.1 has denied that before the occurrence the accused had instituted any case against her husband, the informant. P.W.2 also was asked the same question and he also denied that they either had any enmity with the appellant from before or were entangled with him in any case (Paragraph 23). 21. Though in the first information report the word "extremists" has been used, but P.W.3 when asked about that, said that there was no Naxalism in the locality (Paragraph 9) nor that he had heared about Naxals (Paragraph 18). P.W.4 also claimed that there was no extremism or Naxalism in his locality. However, it was pointed out that P.W.5, a witness of seizure of allegedly some extremist documents from the house of the appellant, admitted in cross- examination that the local Extremist Organisations were active. These two statements are reconciled from the Statement of P.W.11. It may be borne in mind that evidence in this case had commenced almost after nine years of the incident, and in recent times the spread of extremism in parts of this State is a common knowledge. These two statements are reconciled from the Statement of P.W.11. It may be borne in mind that evidence in this case had commenced almost after nine years of the incident, and in recent times the spread of extremism in parts of this State is a common knowledge. But P.W.11, the Investigating Officer in his evidence said that when he was posted as Officer-in-charge at Khizersarai Police Station extremism had just started seeping in into the locality. Therefore, evidence of P.W.5 evidently referred to the situation at the time he was giving evidence. 22. P.W.11 also said about seizure of a receipt book for collection of subscription on behalf of Bihar Pradesh Kisan Sabha, and one poster from the house of the appellant, but his piece of evidence can hardly be considered since those seized articles were not produced in the court. 23. Lastiy, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that this appellant had indulged into any overt act or had any act in the killing of Surendra Sharma, or himself had taken away any of the articles. 24. We have already noticed and recorded before hand that there was overwhelming evidence on the record to show that a dacoity was committed at the claimed place of occurrence and in course of that dacoity Surendra Sharma was killed. 25. Section 396 of the Code runs as follows : "396. Dacoity with murder.If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so doing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 26. From a mere perusal of this section it is apparent that if any one of the dacoit commits a murder in so committing dacoity every one of those dacoits could be punished with the punishment prescribed under this section. Therefore, it is not necessary that the prosecution must also prove, in order to establish charge under section 396 of the Code against a particular accused, that he also had participated in the killing or himself had taken away any article. 27. Therefore, it is not necessary that the prosecution must also prove, in order to establish charge under section 396 of the Code against a particular accused, that he also had participated in the killing or himself had taken away any article. 27. From the evidence on record we find it established that the appellant was one of the persons who had so committed dacoity in course of which Surendra Sharma was killed. Therefore, the learned lower court rightly had convicted him and awarded the sentence prescribed under law. 28. It may here also be mentioned that as has come in the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the informant, that a year before her evidence her husband was murdered. This has not been denied, hence non- examination of the informant. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted for reduction in sentence. No doubt this is a case of the year 1988 but delay was mainly caused because of the absconding of this appellant. Therefore, on that account leniency is not called for. Thus, keeping in view the nature of offence, we do not think that the sentence needs any reduction. 30. In the result, we find that the judgment of the learned lower court is based upon correct appraisal of the evidence on record, therefore, it needs no interference. 31. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 32. Sri K.K. Chaubey, learned Advocate had rendered good assistance to the court while arguing the case of the appellant as Amicus Curiae. The appreciation of the court is recorded. Sri Chaubey will be paid his remuneration from the Legal Aid Services Committee of this Court.