JUDGMENT S.M.M. ALAM, J.:- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th June, 1992 and the order dated 9th June, 1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 600/1990R by Sri Vikramaditya Prasad, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagapur, whereby he has been pleased to convict the appellants under sections 436 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of rupees one thousand and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred and in default rigorous imprisonment for nine months under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He further ordered that the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that on 9.12.89 eleven persons with their signatures filed a written repot (Exhibit-2) before A.S.I. of Phulidumar P.S. within the district of Bhagalpur to the effect that on 31.10.89 (Tuesday) at about 1.30 P.M. a strong mob of rioters collected near village Laugaim, Tola-Mohammad Nagar, P.S. Phulidumar, where the above mentioned eleven persons have got their houses. Being afraid, all the eleven persons, after entrusting their house hold articles to their neighbours, fled away from the village. In the meantime rumor spread about the arrival of police and so the mob retreated but again came back after the informant and others left their houses. They started ransacking the houses of minority community and after looting the house hold articles they set fire to their houses. The informant and others after running away from their houses came to the west of the village and hid themselves by the side of the Canal and from there they witnessed the entire occurrence. Amongst the rioters they identified Jhopra Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Parsadi Yadav, Sarjun Yadav, Suliya Yadav, Jyotish Yadav, Molho Yadav, Nagtu Yadav, Kailu Yadav, Kishori Yadav and Krishna Nana Singh. It is said that all the rioters were from village Kenduar. 3. On the basis of above said joint written report (Exhibit-2). Amarpur (Phulidumar) P.S. case no. 242 dated 9.12.89 was instituted against all the eleven named accused. After institution of the case, the police investigated the case and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against all the named accused persons. It is said that all the rioters were from village Kenduar. 3. On the basis of above said joint written report (Exhibit-2). Amarpur (Phulidumar) P.S. case no. 242 dated 9.12.89 was instituted against all the eleven named accused. After institution of the case, the police investigated the case and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against all the named accused persons. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the co rut of Sessions. Thereafter, the accused persons (now appellants were put on trial and by the impugned-judgment and order they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above. 4. Against the said judgment and order the appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal. 5. The submission of the learned advocate of the appellants is that the impugned judgment and order of the learned lower court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned advocate of the appellants has further argued that there was abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R. and no explanation has come forward from the side of the prosecution regarding such abnormal delay and, therefore, on this ground alone the appellants should have been acquitted. She has further argued that the witnesses are not trustworthy and they had no opportunity to identify the accused persons as admittedly due to fear they had fled away from their houses. She has submitted that the learned lower court should have held that the witnesses had no opportunity to witness the occurrence and their testimony in this regard is unbelievable and unreliable and thereafter' the learned lower court should have acquitted the appellants. 6. Let us see as to what evidence the prosecution has led against the appellants to prove the charge levelled against them. 7. In all, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Kudrat Ali, P.W. 2 Mushtaque Alam, P.W. 3 Haider Ali, P.W. 4 Md.I Mursheed, P.W. 5 Noor Mohammad, P.W.6 Gulam Rasool. P.W.7 Md. Shafique P.W. 8 Md. Idrish, P.W. 9 Md. Abul Hasan, P.W. 10 Sacchidanand Singh and P.W, 11 Md. Shamimuddin. One Jai Ram Singh has also been examined in this case as Court witness No.1. the defence has not examined any witness. 8. The evidence of P.W.1 Kudrat Ali is that the occurrence took place on 31.10.89 at about 2.00 p.m. At that time he was at his house. Abul Hasan, P.W. 10 Sacchidanand Singh and P.W, 11 Md. Shamimuddin. One Jai Ram Singh has also been examined in this case as Court witness No.1. the defence has not examined any witness. 8. The evidence of P.W.1 Kudrat Ali is that the occurrence took place on 31.10.89 at about 2.00 p.m. At that time he was at his house. A mob of about five thousand persons of Hindu Community came from east raising slogans "Mahavir Swami Ki Jay", "Maro Sale Miya Ko", "Loot Lo" etc. Due to fear, he fled away towards Canal and hid himself there and from there he witnessed the entire occurrence. He has further deposed that the members of the mob started looting the house hold articles of the houses of minority community and thereafter they set fire to the houses. He has further deposed that amongst the rioters he identified Dhani Yadav, Parsadi Yadav, Jyotish Yadav, Nangtu Yadav, Suliya Yadav, Molho Yadav, Kailu Yadav, Krishna Nand Singh, Kishori Yadav and Jhopo Yadav. He has further deposed that after the said occurrence he alongwith others went to the house of Jai Ram Singh, Mukhiya, from there he went to the Police Station and then he went to village Dauna. 9. P.W. 2 Mushtaque Alam has also given similar statement about the occurrence as given by P.W. 1 However, he has deposed that he had not identified any of the accused at the time of occurrence. He has further deposed that he also had gone to the house of Mukhiya Jai Ram Singh and from there he went to Amarpur Police Station and then he went to village Dauna. 10. P.W. 3 Haider Ali has deposed that a mob of about five thousand persons attacked his house and the houses of minority community and after looting the house hold articles they set fire to the houses. He has also deposed that he identified Jhopra Yadav, Jyotish Yadav, Danhi Yadav, Parsadi Yadav, Nangtu Yadav, Surya Yadav, Krishna Nand Singh, Kishori Yadav; Sarju Yadav, Kailu Yadav, and Molho Yadav amongst the rioters who were engaged in looting and arson he has deposed that he has witnessed the entire occurrence from near the Canal. 11. P.W. 4 Md. Mursheed has also given similar description about the occurrence as given by PWs. 1, 2 and 3. 11. P.W. 4 Md. Mursheed has also given similar description about the occurrence as given by PWs. 1, 2 and 3. He has further deposed that he had witnessed the entire occurrence from near the Canal and had identified Jhopri Yadav, Nangtu Yadav, Sulo Yadav, Molho Yadav, Kishori Yadav, Sarun Yadav, Kailu Yadav, and Krishna Singh amongst the rioters. At para 6, this witness has deposed that he had also gone to the house of Jai Ram Singh and on the next day he went to the Police Station and then he went to village Dauna. 12. P.W. 5 Noor Mohammad, P.W. 7 Md. Shafique, P.W. 8 Md. Idrish and P.W. 9 Md. Abul Hasan have also given similar description about the alleged occurrence. P.W. 5 Noor Mohammad has named Jhopar Yadav, Jyotish Yadav, Dhamri Yadav, Parsadi Yadav, Krishna Nand Singh, Kishori Yadav and Kailu Yadav, whereas, P.W. 7 has named Jyotish Yadav, Jhopar Yadav, Mauli Yadav, Suliya Yadav, Nankhu Yadav, Parsadi Yadav, Maula Yadav, Krishna Singh, Kishori Yadav, Sarjun Yadav and Kailu Yadav. As regards P.W. 8 Md. Idrish is concerned, he has identified only Parsadi Yadav amongst the rioters and so he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. So far P.W. 9 Md. Abul Hasan is concerned, he has identified Jhopar Yadav, Jyotish Yadav, Dhoni Yadav, parsadi Yadav, Suliya Yadav, Langtu Yadav, Molo Yadav, Kailu Yadav, Krishna Nand Singh, Kishori Yadav and Sarun Yadav. Out of remaining three witnesses P.W. 6 is a tendered witness, P.W. 10 is I.O. and P.W. 11 is formal witness who has proved written report (Exhibit-2). 13. P.W. 10 Sachidanand Singh is the I.O. of this case who has deposed tha on 9.12.89 he had received the joint petition (Exhibit-2) on the basis of which this case was instituted and investigation of the case was handed over to him. He has further deposed that during investigation he visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses and on inspection of place of occurrence he found the houses of Md. Rayeesh Mian, Md. Ishrafil, Md. Abul Hasan, Md. Idrish, Md. Hussain in burnt condition. He has further deposed that he had found the houses of several other persons in burnt condition. 14. Rayeesh Mian, Md. Ishrafil, Md. Abul Hasan, Md. Idrish, Md. Hussain in burnt condition. He has further deposed that he had found the houses of several other persons in burnt condition. 14. So far C.W. 1 Jai Ram Singh is concerned, although he has deposed that on 31.10.89 at about 2.00 P.M. some persons numbering about 60-65 persons from the Mohammedan community had come to his house, but he has deposed that the above mentioned persons had not disclosed the names of the accused persons. Further he has deposed that the above mentioned persons had stayed in his house in the night and on the next day in the morning he himself had gone to Amarpur P.S. and informed the police. Thereafter, Officer Incharge of the said P.S. had come to his house and he had handed over all the persons belonging to muslim community to the Officer Incharge. Thus, from the perusal of the record of the learned lower court it appears that the prosecution has tried to prove its case from the evidence of P.W. 1 Kudrat Ali, P.W. 3 Haider AIi, P.W. 4 Md. Mursheed, P.W. 5 Noor Mohammad, P.7 Md. Shafique, P.W.8 Md. Idrish and P.W. 9 Md. Abul Hasan. 15. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned lower court it appears that the learned lower court has placed reliance upon the evidence of PWs. 3 and 7 only and he has discarded the evidence of other prosecution witnesses on the point of identification. The submission of the learned advocate of the appellants is that where a large number of accused participated in the incident and several persons had seen the incident, it is proper and rational to see that the evidence of witnesses with regard to the identification of the accused is consistent and at least supported by two or more witnesses. In support of her argument, she has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Chandra Shekhar Bind and Others Vs. State of Bihar [2001(8) SCC page 690] [: 2001(4) PLJR (SC) 203] and in the case of Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar [ 1997(1) SCC 283 ] [: 1997(1) PLJR (SC) 24]. In both the decisions, it has been held that when the size of unlawful assembly is quite large, it would be prudent to insist on identification of accused by at least two reliable witnesses. 16. State of Bihar [ 1997(1) SCC 283 ] [: 1997(1) PLJR (SC) 24]. In both the decisions, it has been held that when the size of unlawful assembly is quite large, it would be prudent to insist on identification of accused by at least two reliable witnesses. 16. The submission of the learned advocate of the appellants is that here in this case although conviction is based on the basis of identification of only two witnesses but those two witnesses are also not trustworthy as for the first time after 43 days of the occurrence they had disclosed the names of the appellants before the police and, so, it was an after thought and manipulated statement. 17. Let us see whether P.Ws. 3 and 7 are trustworthy witnesses and also whether the finding of the learned lower court that the other witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution are not reliable in so far as identification of the accused is concerned is correct or not. 18. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned lower court it appears that the learned lower court has discarded the evidence of P.W. 1 Kudrat Ali, P.W. 4 Md. Mursheed, P.W. 5 Noor Mohammad, P.W. 8 Md. Idrish and P.W. 9 Md. Abul Hasan only on the ground that although they have deposed that after the occurrence they had gone to the house of Mukhiya Jai Ram Singh but the said Jai Ram Singh, who has been examined as C.W.1, has categorically deposed that the persons belonging to minority community, who had come to his house, had not disclosed the names of the accused persons' to them. In this background, the learned lower court has held that the evidence of above mentioned witnesses on the point of identification is not reliable. I am of the view that the finding of the learned lower court is not based on rational approach and he had not considered the mental condition of the witnesses who are mostly from minority community as they were definitely terrorised and were gripped by fear psychosis. I am of the view that the finding of the learned lower court is not based on rational approach and he had not considered the mental condition of the witnesses who are mostly from minority community as they were definitely terrorised and were gripped by fear psychosis. At that time, their only aim was the safety and security of their family members and children and for them it was a quite good gesture on the part of C.W.1 to give shelter to them and in such circumstance it was but natural that they (the witnesses) did not disclose the name of accused persons to C.W. 1. I am further of the view that there was no opportunity for the witnesses to disclose the names of the accused persons to C.W. 1 as there is nothing in the evidence of C.W.1 that he had asked the witnesses to disclose the names of the accused persons and even then the witnesses did not disclose the names of accused persons, so, it cannot be said that merely because of the fact that the witnesses had not disclosed the names of the accused persons to C.W. 1, reliance cannot be placed upon their testimony so far identification of accused is concerned. 19. The learned lower court while rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 has referred some lines from the written report (Exhibit-2) and on that basis he has held that out of eleven signatories of written report (Exhibit-2), a few had seen the occurrence and the rest had not seen the occurrence as they had fled away to the house of Mukhiya (C.W. 1) and that is why he has dis-believed the statement of those witnesses who had admittedly gone to the house of Mukhiya. I think this view. is also incorrect because the sentence" Ham Logo Main se Kuch" never indicates that out of eleven signatories some had seen the occurrence and rest had fled away to the house of Mukhiya, rather, "Hum Logo Main Se Kuch" indicates that out of 60 to 65 persons of muslim community including women and children who fled to the house of Mukhiya (C.W. 1) 11 persons remained hidden near the canal. My view finds support from the evidence of C.W.1 who has categorically deposed before the learned lower court that on that day about 60-65 persons including women and children had come to his house. This evidence of C.W. 1 fully establishes that "Hum Logo Mein Se Kuch" indicates that out of 60-65 persons eleven persons had remained near the Canal and from there they had witnessed the occurrence and not that out of 11 only 2 to 3 persons remained near the canal and rest 8-9 persons fled to the house of C.W.1. I am, therefore, of the view that with regard to the identification of the accused persons evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are also material and it cannot be discarded. Thus, on the point of identification, I find that the evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are relevant. 20. It appears from the deposition of witnesses that the appellant Sarjun Yadav was identified by four witnesses i.e. PWs. 4, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Jhopra Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Dhani Yadav was identified by five witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Prasadi Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Suleeya Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Jyotish Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 appellant Malho Yadav was identified by five witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Nangtu Yadav was identified by five witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9, appellant Kailu Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, appellant Kishori Yadav was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and appellant Krishna Nand Singh was identified by six witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Thus, it appears that each of the appellants has been identified by more than two witnesses and, as Such, there is no reasonable ground to reject the evidence of the above said witnesses with regard to the identification of the accused appellants. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Thus, it appears that each of the appellants has been identified by more than two witnesses and, as Such, there is no reasonable ground to reject the evidence of the above said witnesses with regard to the identification of the accused appellants. I, therefore, hold that the above mentioned prosecution witnesses appears to be trustworthy witnesses in so far as the identification of the accused-appellants is concerned and there is no reasonable ground to discard their evidence in so far as the identification of the appellants is concerned. 21. With regard to the delay in lodging of the case, I find that there is definitely a long delay of 39 days in lodging the F.I.R. but I am of the view that this abnormal delay of lodging the F.I.R. is not due to intentional act on the part of the informant or eleven signatories of the written report, rather, the evidence on record establishes that it was the local police which was reluctant in lodging the F.I.R. Here, again the background of the incident should be kept in mind. The occurrence, which is not disputed, has been described in the written report in his manner. On Tuesday i.e. on 31.10.89 at about 1.30 P.M. we saw a strong mob of rioters coming from eastern and southern side of the village. Having seen the mob coming we became terrorised and fled away from their houses after handing over some house hold articles to our neighbours. The above averments in the written report shows that the informant and the witnesses who belong to Muslim community had become terrorised after seeing the mob coming towards their houses and therefore at that time their main object was to save their lives and the lives of their children and women and so with this object in mind they rushed to the house of Mukhiya from where they got a ray of hope of safety of their lives. The evidence of C.W. 1 on this point is very clear and unambiguous as he has deposed that when 60-65 persons belonging to muslim community comprising men, women, and children came to his house, they were afraid of their lives and, so" he gave them shelter and all stayed in his house in the night. The evidence of C.W. 1 on this point is very clear and unambiguous as he has deposed that when 60-65 persons belonging to muslim community comprising men, women, and children came to his house, they were afraid of their lives and, so" he gave them shelter and all stayed in his house in the night. This circumstance fully establishes that the first object of, the witnesses was to save their lives and the lives of their family members and, so, it is absurd to expect from them that at that time they would have gone to Police Station to lodge the case. At this stage, I must say that the evidence on record shows that it was not due to fault of the witnesses that the case was not instituted without any delay, rather, the fact is that the police was reluctant in instituting the case and this fact is established from the evidence of C.W.1 and supported by practically all the prosecution witnesses. C.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that on the next day of the occurrence he had handed over all the 60 to 65 persons of muslim community to the local police who had taken them to Dauna Camp. He has further deposed that on the next day in the morning he himself went to Amarpur P.S. and informed the police and thereafter the Officer Incharge of the said Amarpur P.S. came to his house to whom he handed over all the persons of muslim community. He has given emphasis on this point that on the next day i.e. 1.11.89 at about 6.00 a.m. he had handed over all the persons of muslim community to the Officer Incharge of Amarpur P.S. This evidence of C.W. 1 also finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. 22. When it is established that on the very next day of the occurrence the witnesses besides other members of the muslim community were handed over to the police, it was the duty of the policl3 to record their statements and to institute the case because all the members of the minority community had not gathered in the house of Mukhiya for picnic, rather, they had gone there because their houses were ransacked and set ablazed and their lives were in danger. In such circumstance it was the bounded duty of the police to immediately lodge the case but the police by shifting the members of minority community to the camp at village Dauna hought that they had discharged their duty. I am, therefore, of the view that it were not the witnesses who failed in their duties to lodge, the F.I.R., rather, it was police which failed in due discharge of their duties. 23. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it appears that Exhibit-2 was submitted before the police much before the date of 9.12.1989. In this regard, P.W.1 at para 7 has deposed that 4-5 days after the occurrence his statement was recorded by the police at village Dauna. He has further deposed that the police had taken his signature on his statement. P.W. 3 at para 3 has deposed that he had submitted the written report (Exhibit-2) just after ten days of the occurrence. He has further deposed at para 7 that after 2 to 4 days of the occurrence he had gone to the police station where his statement was• recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police and he had also taken his signature on the said statement. Again at para-8 he has deposed that ten days after the occurrence the Sub-Inspector of Police had recorded his statement and not after 43 days of the occurrence. P.W. 8 at para-6 has deposed that he submitted the written report (Exhibit-2) before the police after a fortnight from the date when he was shifted to village Dauna and P.W. 9 at Para-9 has deposed that he had submitted the written report (Exhibit-2) in the police station after ten to twelve days of the occurrence. The above evidence of the prosecution witnesses establishes beyond doubt that Exhibit-2 (written report) was submitted in the police station much earlier and it appears that date of submission of the written report (Exhibit-2) was manipulated by the police. I am of the firm opinion that Exhibit-2 was not submitted on 9.12.89 before the police, rather, it was submitted at least one day before 9.12.89. In this regard, I would like to refer the second page of the case diary bearing page no. 434703 in which the police had incorporated the entire contents of Exhibit-2. I am of the firm opinion that Exhibit-2 was not submitted on 9.12.89 before the police, rather, it was submitted at least one day before 9.12.89. In this regard, I would like to refer the second page of the case diary bearing page no. 434703 in which the police had incorporated the entire contents of Exhibit-2. At the bottom of this page below the signatures of 11-persons the date 8.12.89 is mentioned which shows that at least one day prior to 9.12.89 Exhibit-2 was submitted before the police. This fact finds corroboration from the interpolation made in the date over Exhibit-2 which is very visible. Moreover, it is also established from the suggestion put forward by the defence to the witnesses. The defence has suggested to P. 3 at Para -10 that he had filed written report in the Police Station for the first time on 8.12.89. Again at para-15, the •same suggestion was given to P.W. 4 and at para-6 it was suggested to P.W. 5 that the written report (Exhibit-2) bears the date 8.12.89. From the above evidence and suggestions put forward to the witnesses by the defence copuled with the entries at pages 434703 it has been established beyond doubt that it is incorrect to say that Exhibit-2 was filed for the first time on 9.12.1989, rather, the same was filed in the Police Station much earlier as deposed by the witnesses. I am, therefore, of the view that it was the police which failed in his duty and did not institute the case earlier. Under the circumstances mentioned above, I hold that the delay in lodging of the first information report was not because of the fact that informant or signatories of Exhibit-2 did not intentionally inform the police about the occurrence but because of the fact that the police was reluctant to institute the case and, so, delay in lodging the case is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. 24. 24. As regards the occurrence of loot and arson, it is not disputed rather the dispute is regarding the identification of the accused and I have already found above that each of the appellants has been identified by at least 4-5 witnesses and them is nothing on record to doubt their testimony in this regard specially when the defence could not be able to bring any circumstance on record showing that the witnesses were inimical to the appellants. I, therefore, find and hold that the prosecution has been fully able to prove that on the alleged date of the occurrence the appellants alongwith several other persons ad attacked the houses of the informant 2nd others and after looting the household articles they had set fire to their houses. I further find and hold that the appellants have been rightly convicted under sections 25. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that much water has flown after a gap of 15 years since the date of occurrence and at present the members of both the communities are living peacefully and amicably. Moreover, the appellants had to fight a long legal battle and during this period they remained under trauma and so in such circumstances there is need for reduction in the quantum of sentence. But, I cannot agree with the argument of the learned advocate and I am of the view that such fundamentalist who become mad in the name of religion should be severely dealt with. I further find that the sentence awarded to the appellants are very moderate and, therefore, I hold that there is no need of interfering with the quantum of sentence and accordingly the argument of learned counsel is not accepted. 26. In the result, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal and, as such, the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is hereby confirmed and upheld. The appellants are on bail and, as such, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the remaining period of sentences. Order of stay of realisation of fine is vacated.