Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. Criminal appeal Numbers 310, 324 and 329 of 2002 arise out of the same judgment have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the appellants in criminal appeal numbers 310, 324 and 329 of 2002 have been convicted u/s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Rama Kant Pandey gave his statement before the police on 7-6-1999 at about 9.15 a.m. at the field of his Dalan stating, inter alia, that on 6-6-1999 at about 5 p.m. he was sitting at his door. In the meantime, 15 to 16 miscreants in police uniforms having armed with rifle, staingun and guns came at the Darwaza of the informant. He understood that the police personnel has come but when they reached near him they caught him and asked about his gun and they also claimed themselves to be the members of the party unity. Thereafter, the informant identified them as criminals of his own village. He identified Shankar Ram, Pujan Ram, Godhan Ram and Deemuni Ram of village Gangapur Police Station, Sikraul, District Buxar. According to him, he did not identify the rest of the miscreants. He has stated that the accused Deemuni Ram was asking him for immediate surrender of his gun and it will not be given he will be killed by his gun. Thereafter, the informant asked his son to give him the gun. When there was delay in handing over of the gun, the accused pointed out his gun to his chest whereupon the informant asked his son to bring the gun from the Godrej Almirah. His son brought gun and fifteen rounds cartridges and handed over to the accused for saving the life of the informant It has been also stated that the accused Shankar Ram pointed out that the brother of the informant was also sitting there and he had also a rifle and, subsequently, the accused persons caught his cousin brother Bidyadhar Pandey and assaulted him and asked him about the rifle. The cousin brother of the informant refused to give the same. Thereafter, the miscreants again assaulted him by Danda and the informant asked him to bring the rifle and to hand over the same to the miscreants. The cousin brother of the informant refused to give the same. Thereafter, the miscreants again assaulted him by Danda and the informant asked him to bring the rifle and to hand over the same to the miscreants. It has been stated that the miscreants also went to taken house of his cousin with him. The informant further claimed that his cousin brother identified the accused Bhulan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Dharmdev Ram, Mahendra Ram, Raman Ram and ten other unknown accused persons who were having police uniforms and also were having armed with fire-arms. All the miscreants succeeded in looting his gun but they did not succeed in looting the gun of others because the family members of others started firing in their defence. Hearing the sound of firing from the side of the resident the villagers assemble and the miscreants fled away towards the scuth of the village. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant the police instituted Sikraul P.S. case No. 25 of 1999 under Secs. 395, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation. After conclusion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, the trial concluded in the manner as indicated above, The appellants pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether seven witnesses including the informant P.W. 5 P.W. 1 is Dharamraj Pandey, P.W. 2 is Bidyadhar Pandey, P.W. 3 is Ram Chandra Pandey, P.W. 4 is Sarabdeo Pandey. P.W. 5 is Rama Kant Pandey, the informant in this case. P.W. 6 is Yogesh Chandra, who is second I.O. in this case and P.W. 7 is Shahabuddn Khan, who had firstly investigate the case. 4. P.W. 1, Dharamraj Pandey has stated that the occurrence took place on 6-6-1999 at about 5 p.m. At that time he was sitting with his father and his uncle at his Darwaza. Some of the labourers were also thrasing the tube-well 15 to 20 persons came at the door in police uniform having armed with rifle. Thereafter, they surrounded them. P.W. 1, Dharamraj Pandey has stated that the occurrence took place on 6-6-1999 at about 5 p.m. At that time he was sitting with his father and his uncle at his Darwaza. Some of the labourers were also thrasing the tube-well 15 to 20 persons came at the door in police uniform having armed with rifle. Thereafter, they surrounded them. He identified among 15 to 20 persons some persons of his village as Shankar Ram, Pujan Ram, Godhan Ram and they identified them, According to him, the accused Deomuni Ram of village Gangapur was also in police uniform and he was also identified by them. He has stated that Deomuni Ram caught his father and demanded gun. They claimed to be the members of the party unity. Thereafter, they took his father in the courtyard and were asking for the gun. According to him, the miscreants took away the other family members in courtyard and also took away their guns and fifty Golis (cartridges). The miscreants also took away rifle of his uncle and his uncle was also assaulted by Deomuni Ram. He stated that after sometime the villagers also assembled and also fired on dacoits. According to him, the accused persons Bhulan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Raman Ram, Dharmdev Ram, Mahendra Ram and Bikraj Ram and Godhan Ram were also standing in the street. According to him, the miscreants also took away Rs. 10,500.00 from the house of Ram Awadhesh Pandey. He has also stated that in the course of the firing Bhola Yadav. Funna Lal were dead and Nandji Pandey of his village was injured and some of the miscreants were also killed. 5. P.W. 2 is Bidyadhar Pandey. According to him, the occurrence took place on 6-6-1989 at 5 p.m. He was standing at the Darwaza of Rama Kant Pandey. He saw 15-16 miscreants having armed with fire-arms came in police uniform. He also stated that Shankar Ram entered into is house and caught Dharamraj Pandey and Ramakant Pandey and demanded their guns and they also threatened them if they would not give gun they would be killed. Shankar Ram, Deomuni Ram, Pujan Ram and Godhan Ram were also seen by him snatching the gun. He also stated that Shankar Ram entered into is house and caught Dharamraj Pandey and Ramakant Pandey and demanded their guns and they also threatened them if they would not give gun they would be killed. Shankar Ram, Deomuni Ram, Pujan Ram and Godhan Ram were also seen by him snatching the gun. According to him, accused persons also tied him on identified by Shankar Ram and they had taken away this witness near the house of Sampat Kumar Mishra where Bhulan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Dharamdeo Ram, Mahendra Ram and Raman Ram were there. He also stated that the accused persons assaulted him also. He also heard the sound of fire-arm and thereafter, having heard the sound of fire-arm the accused persons fled away. He also claimed to identify all the miscreants. 6. P.W. 3, Ram Chandra Pandey had also supported the case of prosecution and stated that occurrence took place on 6-6-1999 at 5 p.m. At that time he was at his door. In the meantime, fifteen persons came there from the side of Harijan Toli in police uniform having various arms. According to him, he identified these miscreants as Shambhu Ram, Jiut Ram, Brij Mohan Ram and also saw the other miscreants. Thereafter, he fled away and went to the roof of Sampat Kumar Mishra. He also stated that he saw that miscreants entered into his house and started looting, there, villagers also fired and also threw bricks. He had stated that the accused persons tied his cousin Binod Kumar Pandey before him and asked him to stop firing. The miscreants Shambhu shot fire twice to him and fled away towards Harijan Toli. Thereafter, the villagers told him that in the aforesaid firing shot by the miscreants Nand Kumar Pandey, Bhola Yadav and son of Vishwanath Singh were injured. This witness also claimed to identify the miscreants. 7. P.W. 4 is Tarkeshwar Pandey. He has also stated that the occurrence took place on 6-8-1999 at about 5.30 p.m. At that time he was in his Khalihan. He heard sound of firing from the gun towards North. Thereafter, he went to his house. He saw that Rama Kant Pandey was tied up by Shankar Ram and Deomuni Ram and they were also demanding arms. He has also stated that the occurrence took place on 6-8-1999 at about 5.30 p.m. At that time he was in his Khalihan. He heard sound of firing from the gun towards North. Thereafter, he went to his house. He saw that Rama Kant Pandey was tied up by Shankar Ram and Deomuni Ram and they were also demanding arms. Thereafter, he fled away by fear and saw that Godhan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Pujan Ram and Mahendra Ram were standing having arms in their hands. He also law Mahendra Ram and Shambhu Ram assaulting Binod Pandey by tying him. According to him Rs. 10,000.00 have been taken away by the miscreants. This witness also claimed to identify them. 8. P.W. 5, Rama Kant Pandey, informant of this case has fully supported the prosecution case as stated in Fardbeyan. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. he alongwith his cousin Bidyadhar Pandey, P.W. 2 and his son, P.W. 1, were sitting at his Darwaza. Some of the labourers were boring a hand pump. About 10-15 persons in a police uniform having armed with rifle, gun and staingun arrived there. He saw Shankar Ram, Deomuni Ram of Gangapur and also saw Pujan Ram and Godhan Ram amongst them. They demanded gun from him. According to him, Shankar Ram and Deomuni Ram alongwith 8 to 10 persons took him to courtyard and demanded gun. On refusal Deomuni Ram pointed out his machine gun at his chest. On this he gave his gun alongwith fifty cartridges. They also demanded rifle from Bidyadhar, P.W. 2. He suggested to Bidyadhar to part with rifle. Thereafter, the miscreants took him to his house. P.W, 2 Bidyadhar told him that he identified Bhulan Ram, Raman Ram, Nageshwar Ram, Bikraj Ram and Dharmdev Ram etc. 9. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are two Investigating Officers in this case. P.W. 7 on the information went to village and got the fardbeyan of the informant recorded and also seized the things and prepared a seizure-list. He has proved the seizure list and fardbeyan. According to him, he also recorded the statement of the villagers. He also saw dacoity in the house of P.W. 2 and also prepared inquest report of two unknown dead bodies. Thereafter, the entrusted the charge of investigation to P.W. 6. 10. P.W. 6 is Yogesh Chandra. He has proved the seizure list and fardbeyan. According to him, he also recorded the statement of the villagers. He also saw dacoity in the house of P.W. 2 and also prepared inquest report of two unknown dead bodies. Thereafter, the entrusted the charge of investigation to P.W. 6. 10. P.W. 6 is Yogesh Chandra. He also got recorded the statement of the other witnesses and, finally, submitted charge-sheet in this case. The factum of dacoity is not disputed. The occurrence took place in the broad-day light at about 5 O clock in the evening in the month of June, 1999. All the five witnesses on factum of dacoity have fully supported the occurrence. They have also identified the appellants. The gun was forcibly taken away from the possession of the informant Rama Kant Pandey, P.W. 5. During the course of dacoity also the miscreants assaulted Dharamraj Pandey and his son, P.W. 1. The dacoits also committed dacoity in nearby houses of Bidyadhar Pandey and other houses also. The dacoits were all in police uniform. They were having machine guns in their possession. They belonged, to extremists outfit of party unit. They also tooted money from the house of Ram Awadhesh Pandey. There was a firing and counter-firing between villagers and-the extremists in which not only Nandji Pandey got injured but other two unknown persons died. The two police officers, who were also examined, had supported the case on the factum of identification by miscreants. The appellants are named in the First Information Report and at the time of dacoity there was enough light in the evening in the month of June and it was 5 O clock when dacoits entered into the house. Most of the dacoits were co-villagers, who were identified by the witnesses. P.W. 5, informant Rama Kant Pandey had identified Deomuni Ram, Shankar Ram, Pujan Ram and Godhan Ram. He had also stated that Bidyadhar Pandey, P.W. 2, has identified appellants Godhan Ram, Raman Ram, Mahendra Ram, Bikraj Ram and Dharmdev Ram and others. 11. P.W. 1 Dharamraj Pandey has also identified appellants Shankar Ram, Pujari Ram and Deomuni Ram. He has also stated that he saw appellants Bhulan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Raman Ram, Dharamraj Ram, Mahendra Ram, Bikraj Ram and Godhan Ram in the Gali. 11. P.W. 1 Dharamraj Pandey has also identified appellants Shankar Ram, Pujari Ram and Deomuni Ram. He has also stated that he saw appellants Bhulan Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Raman Ram, Dharamraj Ram, Mahendra Ram, Bikraj Ram and Godhan Ram in the Gali. P.W. 2, Bidyadhar Pandey, who was on the Darwaza of P.W. 5, saw appellants Shankar Ram, Deomuni Ram, Pujan Ram and Godhan Ram demanding gun from his brother. He also saw appellants, Godhan Ram, Bhulari Ram, Satya Narain Ram, Dharamraj Ram, Mahendra Ram and Raman Ram near the house of Sampat Kumar Mishra. P.W. 3 and identified appellants Shambhu Ram, Jiut Raman Brij Mohan Nam whereas P.W. 4 saw appellants Shankar Ram, Deomuni Ram, who tied the hands of P.W. 5. He also identified Godhan Ram, Satya Narain Ram and Mahendra Ram and also saw Mahendra Ram and Shambhu Ram assaulting Binod Pandey. 12. The appellant Bhulan Ram, Raman Ram, Dharmdeo Ram, Brij Mohan Ram Jiut Ram and Bikraj Ram were identified by one witness. Appellant Shambhu Ram identified by two witnesses. Appellant Mahendra Ram was identified by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Appellant Godhan Ram was identified by P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 and appellant Deomuni Ram was identified by P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Submission of the learned Counsel that why not the all appellants were identified by all the witnesses even. though they were known to them and were all from the same village. On this point from the scrutiny of the deposition of the witnesses it appears that P.W. 5 was confined in his courtyard. He saw only four persons, who were amending gun and manhandling him; whereas P.W. 1 also saw four appellants inside the courtyard as well as when they escaped from his courtyard. P.W. 2 also saw those four miscreants who came to snatch the gun, and also others when they fled away from Darwaza. The other two witnesses also saw the miscreants committing dacoity at the different place at the same time. As such they had no opportunity to see ail together. 13. It has been also submitted by the learned Counsel that the appellants were co-villagers and were not covering their faces which is improbable. But in this case it is pertinent to note that they were extremists. Their moto was not only too loot but also to create terror and bringing armed revolution in the society. 13. It has been also submitted by the learned Counsel that the appellants were co-villagers and were not covering their faces which is improbable. But in this case it is pertinent to note that they were extremists. Their moto was not only too loot but also to create terror and bringing armed revolution in the society. As such they were dare devil not formal criminals. On the point of contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, as submitted, it was very normal because the terror created in the village with the raid of police uniformed extremists, the witnesses were awestruck and not in normal mental condition to watch the occurrence in total, As such the perception of occurrence by the witnesses will vary and descripancy is bound to occur in their depositions. 14. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case because there was dispute regarding the Ian of Math between the parties but this fact has not been brought any where on the record. 15. All the appellants were identified by the witnesses during the commission of dacoity as it was committed in full light in the evening of June at 5 O clock. As such, their evidence cannot be discarded on point of identification. The Court below after going through the evidence of the witnesses, so adduced, and the identification by the witnesses has rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, i see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and these three appeals are dismissed.