Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 685 (PAT)

Raju Manjhi v. State Of Bihar

2005-08-03

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2005
Judgment S. M. M. Alam, J. 1. All the three Cr. Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st August, 2001 passed by Sri S. C. Pandey, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No.341 of 1999/322 of 1999 whereby he has been pleased to convict all the above noted five appellants under Sec.396 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter will be called an IPC ). He has further been pleased to convict appellants Chun Chun Manjhi, Munna manjhi, Anil Rajak and Raju Manjhi under Sec.412 of the IPC also. After convicting all the appellants, he passed order of sentence only under Sec.396 of the IPC and directed all the appellants to undergo RI for life under the said section with fine of rupees one thousand each and in default thereof to undergo further RI for a period of six months. He has not imposed separate sentence under Sec.412 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of PW 3 Kamdeo Singh son of saho Singh of village Bangareya P. S. Hulasganj, Dist. Jahanabad residing at mohalla Lakhibag, P. S. Muffasil, Dist. Gaya recorded by S. I. Md. Jameel Akhter, officer-in-Charge, of Muffasil P. S. on 12.1.1999 at 2.00 a. m. at Lakhibag at his house, in brief, is that he was karamchari at Mohanpur Block and from there he was transferred to Manpur block. After his transfer, he had gone to join Manpur Block and was staying in his house. In the night, he along with his family members were sleeping in the house in different rooms. At about 1.00 a. m. he woke up on hearing some sound and saw four persons entering into his house. On seeing some persons, he opened the door of his room and went over the roof. In the meantime, he heard the cry of his son Neeraj Kumar (PW 2) as well as of his father-in-law Kameshwar Singh. Hearing the cry he immediately came down from the roof and tried to save them from being assaulted as the criminals who had entered into his house were assaulting them. In the process of saving them, he also received injury on his head and back. Hearing the cry he immediately came down from the roof and tried to save them from being assaulted as the criminals who had entered into his house were assaulting them. In the process of saving them, he also received injury on his head and back. His son Neeraj Kumar received bleeding injury on his head, whereas, his father-in-law, who had also sustained injury on his head due to the assault made by the dacoits was bleeding profusely. It is further said that the dacoits snatched the golden chain, payal and other ornaments from his wife sita Devi as well as from his daughterin-law Reena Devi. The dacoits also assaulted them. It is said that the dacoits took away golden kangan, two golden rings, two full pants and rupees five thousand cash which was kept in the ataichi of Neeraj Kumar. It is said that dacoits who were 10-12 in numbers were aged in between 20 to 25 years. They were wearing shirt, lungi, full pant etc. the informant identified them in the electric light. The dacoits took away property worth Rs.25,000.00 and after committing dacoity they fled away towards east. On hulla, people of the locality came at the house of the informant. The informant claimed to identify the dacoits. 3. On the basis of the above fardbeyan of the informant Gaya (Muffasil) P. S. case No.4 of 1999, dated 12.1.1999 was instituted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against 10-12 unknown dacoits. It appears that after institution of the case injured kameshwar Singh died and, as such, sec. 396 of the IPC was added in the case. It further transpires that during investigation some recoveries were also made and so, on the basis of the materials collected by the I,o. charge-sheet under Sections 396/412 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the appellants and others showing Rameshwar manjhi @ Umeshwari Manjhi as ab-sconder. On the basis of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of sessions. On 8.3.2000, charge under sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the five appellants besides one Binod Manjhi. Against appellants Munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak @ Anil Dhobi, Chunchun Manjhi0 and rajo Manjhi charge under Sec.412 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed. On 8.3.2000, charge under sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the five appellants besides one Binod Manjhi. Against appellants Munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak @ Anil Dhobi, Chunchun Manjhi0 and rajo Manjhi charge under Sec.412 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried and thus they were put on trial and by the impugned judgment and order they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above. 4. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law as well as on facts. , The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and without proper appreciation of the evidence he has convicted the appellants. The learned trial Court on the basis of single identification has convicted appellant Munna Manjhi and Anil Rajak and as such, the conviction is bad in law. He has further contended that the entire recovery is the stage managed show and the recovery of notes from the possession of the appellants can not be the basis of conviction as there was no mark of identification on the recovered notes. Likewise, the alleged confession of the appellants are also inadmissible in law and can not be used against the appellants. His further contention is that in absence of any injury report of the witnesses the learned trial Court should have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of dacoity. On the basis of the above argument, learned defence counsel has prayed to allow the appeals. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the State counsel is that the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court is quite legal and is based on the materials available on, the record. His further contention is that to prove the occurrence of dacoity it is not at all necessary to bring the injury report on record in order to prove the fact that during the commission of dacoity the appellants had used force. So, in absence of injury report it can not be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of dacoity. So, in absence of injury report it can not be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of dacoity. He further submitted that since the recovery has been made on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellants, as such, the same will be admissible under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act and, so, it can not be said that the use of confessional statement of the accused by the trial Court is illegal. On the basis of the above argument, he submitted to confirm the judgment and order. 6. On the basis of rival contentions the following points arise for determination. (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of dacoity" (ii) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence and during commission of dacoity they had caused injury to kameshwar Singh as a result of which he died " (iii) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove that appellants Chunchun Manjhi, munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak and raju Manjhi had dishonestly retained stolen property the possession of which were obtained by commission of dacoity " point No. I: 7. In support of the prosecution case, altogether eleven witnesses were examined but so far this point is concerned, the evidence of PW 1 Reena Devi, daughter-in-law of the informant, PW 2 neraj Kumar (son of the informant), PW 3 Kamdeo Singh (informant) and PW 10 jamil Ashgar are relevant, PW 1 Reena devi has deposed in her evidence that on the date of occurrence in the night she was sleeping in her house. On hearing some sound, she woke up and came out of her room and found that the dacoits had already entered into her house after breaking open the outer door. She saw some dacoits assaulting her grand father-in-law and looting the household articles. She has further deposed that the dacoits snatched ornaments from her body. They tried to snatch her child and on resistance they also assaulted her and her mother-in-law. She has further deposed that the dacoits picked up brief case of her "dewar" Neeraj Kumar containing clothes and Rs.5200.00 cash. They also assaulted her "dewar" and her father-in-law. She claimed to identify the dacoits in the electric light. 8. They tried to snatch her child and on resistance they also assaulted her and her mother-in-law. She has further deposed that the dacoits picked up brief case of her "dewar" Neeraj Kumar containing clothes and Rs.5200.00 cash. They also assaulted her "dewar" and her father-in-law. She claimed to identify the dacoits in the electric light. 8. Pw 2 Neeraj Kumar has also deposed that the occurrence had taken place on 11.1.1999. In the night at about 12.00 he was sleeping in the room. His mother, his bhabhi, his father and his maternal grandfather were also sleeping in the house. He heard the sound of knocking the door, whereupon, he woke up. He saw 6-7 persons who were armed with lathi and thona (a wooden piece) entering into his house. He has further deposed that after entering into the house the criminals started looting the household articles. They also started assaulting his maternal grandfather and inflicted blooding injury on his head and threw him down. Thereafter, the dacoits entered into his room and started searching the rack upon which books were kept and then they started assaulting him as a result of which he received injury on his head and hand. The dacoits picked up his briefcase in which he had kept Rs.5,200.00 and also picked up shirt and pant. Thereafter, all the dacoits went to the room of her bhabhi and mother and started looting articles from there. They also snatched ornaments from their possession. The dacoits also assaulted the female members besides his father. In the torch light and electric light he identified the dacoits. He has further deposed that on arrival of the police all the injured including his maternal grand-father were sent to hospital for treatment where his maternal grand-father died. 9. Pw 3 Kamdeo Singh has deposed that on 12.1.1999 at about 11/ 12 in the night a dacoity was committed in his house. On hearing cry of his daughter-in-law and the sound of knocking of the door he woke up. He saw 8-10 persons entering into his house. On seeing them he went over the roof for raising hulla. In the meantime, he heard the cry of his son Neeraj and his father-in-law, whereupon, he again came down. He saw bleeding injury on the head of his father-in-law as well as his son Neeraj. He saw 8-10 persons entering into his house. On seeing them he went over the roof for raising hulla. In the meantime, he heard the cry of his son Neeraj and his father-in-law, whereupon, he again came down. He saw bleeding injury on the head of his father-in-law as well as his son Neeraj. He has further deposed that the dacoits had also assaulted female members of the house and had snatched ornaments from them. He has further deposed that the dacoits took out Rs.5,200.00 and pant shirts belongings to his son. He has also deposed that the dacoits had also caused injury to him. He claimed to identify the dacoits in the electric light. 10. Pw 10 Jamil Ashgar is the investigating Officer who had investigated this case. His evidence is that on 12.1.1999 he was the Officer Incharge of muffasil P. S. He on receiving information about the commission of dacoity rushed towards the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he recorded the fardbeyan of Kamdeo Singh PW 3. He has proved the said fardbeyan which is in the hand writing of ASI. Triveni Ram which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He has fur-ther deposed that he prepared injury reports of Kamdeo Singh, Sita Devi, neeraj Kumar, Reena Devi and kameshwar Singh and sent them to pligrim Hospital, Gaya, for treatment and thereafter he went towards the direction by which the dacoits had fled away and thereafter again returned back to the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of kamdeo Singh consisting of several rooms. He has further deposed that during his inspection of place of occurrence he received information that injured kameshwar Singh had succumbed to his injury in the hospital and then he proceeded to hospital and prepared inquest report (Exhibit-6) of the dead body of said kameshwar Singh. At para 8 of his deposition, he has deposed that he received post-mortem report of Kameshwar Singh and thereafter he submitted chargesheet. 11. From the above evidence of PW 1 Rena Devi, PW 2 Neeraj Kumar, PW 3 kamdeo Singh, it appears that they have fully corroborated the prosecution case that on the alleged date of occurrence a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant Kamdeo Singh. 11. From the above evidence of PW 1 Rena Devi, PW 2 Neeraj Kumar, PW 3 kamdeo Singh, it appears that they have fully corroborated the prosecution case that on the alleged date of occurrence a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant Kamdeo Singh. This further finds corroborated from the evidence of PW 10 Jamil Ashgar who has deposed that on receiving information about the occurrence of dacoity taking place, in the very night he had gone to the house of informant and recorded the fardbeyan of pw 3 Kamdeo Singh regarding the occurrence of dacoity. The evidence of PW 10 further establishes that during the commission of dacoity Kamdeo Singh, Sita devi, Neeraj Kumar, Reena Devi and kameshwar Singh had sustained injuries at the hands of the dacoits and he had forwarded all the injured to the hospital for treatment after preparing the injury slips. His evidence further supports the prosecution case that one of the injured, namely, Kamdeo Singh died within a few hours of the occurrence of dacoity. The fact that Kameshwar Singh had succumbed to his injuries further finds corroboration from the inquest report (Exhibit-6 proved by PW 10) and postmortem report (Exhibit-3 proved by PW 8 Dr. Arvind Prasad ). Thus, from the evidence of above mentioned witnesses coupled with Exhibit-6 (inquest report)and Exhibit-3 (post-mortem report of deceased Kameshwar Singh), the prosecution case that in the night of 11 /12 January, 1999, a dacoity was committed in the house of PW 3 Kamdeo Singh and during the commission of dacoity Kameshwar singh and others had sustained injury at the hands of the dacoits stands well proved. It also stands proved that one of the injured, namely, Kameshwar Singh later on succumbed to his injury. 12. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that the entire story of commission of dacoity is concocted one and in absence of injury reports of pws 1, 2 and 3, the story that they had sustained injuries on their persons at the hands of dacoits during the commission of dacoity stands falsified and thereby the entire occurrence of dacoity becomes doubtful. It appears that this plea was also raised before the trial Court and the trial Court at para 12 of the judgment has made following observation on that plea : "the material is on record to show that Kameshwar Singh died but there is not even a single chit of paper to show that neeraj Kumar, Reena Devi, kamdeo Singh and Sita Devi were also assaulted by the criminals. Had there been any injury on their person the doctor must have had granted certificate of treatment but it is not so. The prosecution has no reply on this point that in absence of report of doctor it is not proved that the above named four persons were also assaulted by the criminals. " 13. I am not in agreement with the observation made by the trial Court in view of the evidence of PW 10 (I. O.) made at para 2 of his deposition. At para 2, he has categorically stated that he prepared injury slips of injured Kamdeo Singh, Sita devi, Neeraj Kumar, Reena Devi and kameshwar Singh and forwarded them to pilgrim Hospital. He again deposed that while he was making inspection of the place of occurrence, he received information that one of the injured, namely, Kameshwar Singh had died in the hospital and, so, he rushed to the hospital and prepared inquest report (Ext.6) of deceased Kameshwar Singh. Thus, from the evidence of PW 10 it is fully established that PWs 1, 2 and 3 had also visible injuries on their persons besides deceased Kameshwar Singh and that is why the I. O. prepared injury slips and forwarded all the injured persons including deceased Kameshwar Singh to pilgrim Hospital, Gaya. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 10 on this point as he is a responsible Officer and also an independent witness not related to the informant. Moreover, his evidence further finds corroboration from the fact that one of the injured who was forwarded by him to the Pilgrim Hospital died in the Hospital and his inquest report (Exhibit-6) and post-mortem report (Exhibit-3) were brought on record. Moreover, his evidence further finds corroboration from the fact that one of the injured who was forwarded by him to the Pilgrim Hospital died in the Hospital and his inquest report (Exhibit-6) and post-mortem report (Exhibit-3) were brought on record. This circumstance is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the oral evidence of PW 10 is of such a nature that its truthfulness can not be doubted and so only on the ground that the injury reports of the injured witnesses were not produced in Court- it is not correct to say that in absence of report of doctor it is not proved that PWs 1, 2 and 3 were also assaulted by the criminals. I am further of the opinion that in a case of dacoity the production of the injury reports of the injured, who had received injuries during the commission of dacoity is not at all essential and it can be proved only by adducing oral evidence if the evidence is reliable. 14. Now, it has been amply proved that PWs 1, 2 and 3 had sustained injuries during the commission of dacoity, as such, I am of the opinion that they are the most competent witnesses on the point of commission of dacoity and in this regard, I place reliance upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Narendra nath Khaware V/s. Paras Nath Khaware and ors. and in the case of Pramod Mandal V/s. The State of Bihar. In both the decisions, the principle has been decided that the injured witnesses are the most competent witnesses and as their presence at the place of occurrence can not be doubted, as such, their evidence are worthy of reliance. Thus, from the above oral as well as documentary evidence it has been proved beyond doubt that on the alleged date of occurrence a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant and during the commission of dacoity the dacoits had caused injury to PWs 1, 2 and 3 besides one Kameshwar Singh, who succumbed to his injuries. Point No. II: 15. The next point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. There are altogether five appellants before me, namely, 1. Munna Manjhi, 2. Raju Manjhi, 3. Point No. II: 15. The next point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. There are altogether five appellants before me, namely, 1. Munna Manjhi, 2. Raju Manjhi, 3. Chunchun Manjhi, 4. Rampati Manjhi, 5. Anil Kumar @ Anil Rajak. One Binod manjhi was also convicted but it appears that he has not preferred any appeal. From the perusal of judgment of the learned trial Court it appears that while convicting the appellants the trial Court has placed reliance upon the evidence of pw 1 Reena Devi, PW 2 Neeraj Kumar and pw 3 Kamdeo Singh. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, they are the inmates of the house in wnich dacoity was committed and as such, they are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence although the learned Additional Sessions judge has held that there is no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that they had sustained injuries on their persons during the course of dacoity. From the evidence of PW 1 Reena Devi, it appears that she has identified three accused in Court, namely, 1. Chunchun manjhi, 2. Munna Manjhi and 3. Binod manjhi (Binod Manjhi is not appellant before this Court ). The evidence of PW 2 neeraj Kumar shows that he had identified only one accused in Court, namely, binod Manjhi (not appellant before this court ). The evidence of PW 3 Kamdeo singh shows that he identified four accused in Court, namely, 1. Chunchun manjhi, 2. Binod Manjhi, 3. Rampati manjhi and 4. Anil Rajak. When the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 on the point of identification of accused is compared with the test identification parade chart (Ex-hibit-2) prepared by PW 6 Mr. R. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, I find that PW 2 had also identified Binod manjhi in test identification parade. Likewise, PW 3 Kamdeo Singh had also identified accused Chunchun Manjhi, binod Manjhi, Rampati Manjhi and Anil rajak in test identification parade but PW 1 Reena Devi had not identified accused binod Manjhi in test identification parade, rather, she had identified accused chunchun Manjhi, Munna Manjhi and rampati Manjhi in test identification parade. Likewise, PW 3 Kamdeo Singh had also identified accused Chunchun Manjhi, binod Manjhi, Rampati Manjhi and Anil rajak in test identification parade but PW 1 Reena Devi had not identified accused binod Manjhi in test identification parade, rather, she had identified accused chunchun Manjhi, Munna Manjhi and rampati Manjhi in test identification parade. I am, therefore, of the view that the identification of accused Binod manjhi in dock by PW 1 Reena Devi has got no legal sanctity. Thus, the figure which emerges from the comparison of the evidence of prosecution witnesses with the TIP chart of accused is as follows:- (a) Appellant Munna Manjhi was identified by one witness, namely, PW 1 Reena Devi. (b) Appellant Chunchun Manjhi was identified by two witnesses, namely, PW 1 Reena devi and PW 3 Kamdeo Singh. (c) Appellant Anil Rajak was identified by one witness, namely, pw 3 Kamdeo Singh, (d) Appellant Rampati Manjhi was identified by one witness, namely, PW 3 Kamdeo Singh. (e) Appellant Raju Manjhi was identified by none. (f) Binod Manjhi (not appellant before this Court) was identified by two witnesses, namely, pw 2 Neeraj Kumar and PW 3 kamdeo Singh (As PW 1 Reena devi had not identified him in tip, as such, her identification of accused Binod Manjhi for the first time in dock has got no legal sanctity ). 16 The submission of the learned defence counsel is that since there is single identification against appellant munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak and Rampati manjhi and, as such, their conviction under Sec-tion 396 of the Indian Penal code on the basis of single identification is bad in law specially when there is a delay of about 18-19 days in holding TIP. Therefore, his submission was to set-aside the conviction of the above mentioned convicts. In this regard, the learned defence counsel has placed reliance upon the decision given in the case of Wakil Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of bihar He has referred para 2 of the said decision, according to which, if the witness does not disclose the feature of the accused nor states anything about the identification marks on the accused, the conviction of the accused on the basis of single identification of only, one witness is not sustainable. V/s. The State of bihar He has referred para 2 of the said decision, according to which, if the witness does not disclose the feature of the accused nor states anything about the identification marks on the accused, the conviction of the accused on the basis of single identification of only, one witness is not sustainable. Against the said argument of learned defence counsel, the argument of the State counsel was that at the time of alleged dacoity there was electric light and the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the faces of dacoits and moreover during the commission of dacoity the dacoits were indiscriminately assaulting the inmates of the house including PWs 1, 2 and 3 besides deceased Kameshwar Singh and they had even tried to snatch the child of Reena Devi, as such their testimony can not be doubted and, so, on the basis of single identification the accused can be convicted. In this regard, he has, placed reliance upon the decision reported in the case of framed Mandal V/s. The State of Bihar (supra) and in the case of Narendra Nath Khaware V/s. Paras Nath khaware and Ors. In both the decisions it has been held that the injured witnesses are the competent witnesses on the point of identification of accused and their testimony can not be discarded in ordinary way. 17. It has been further argued on behalf of the learned defence counsel that there was abnormal delay in holding TIP and in view of the such a long lapse of time it was not possible for any human being to remember the features of the accused and there is every likelihood to commit mistake in identification of the accused and so, on the basis of single identification the conviction of the appellants is unjustified. In support of his argument, learned defence counsel has again referred the decision reported in wakil Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar (supra ). The relevant para of the decision runs as follows : "the High Court has ignored the fact that the identification was made at the TIP about 3-1/2 months after the dacoity and in view of such a long lapse of time, it is not possible for any human being to remember, the features of the accused and he is, therefore, very likely to commit mistakes. In these circumstances, unless the evidence is absolutely clear, it would be unsafe to convict an accused for such a serious offence on the testimony of a single witness. " 18. The submission of the State counsel was that the above decision is not applicable in this case as there is no abnormal delay in holding TIP so far this case is concerned. He submitted that as per the record the TIP was conducted only after 18-19 days after the occurrence and in such a short time there is little chance to forget the faces of the dacoits who had not only participated in the commission of dacoity but had also brutally assaulted the inmates of the house. In support of his argument, the learned state counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in Pramod Mandalv. The State of Bihar (supra) and Anil Kumar V/s. The state of U. P. In both the cases, there was delay in holding TIP. In the former case, there was delay of one month, whereas in the later case there was delay of 47 days but even then it was held that the delay was not fatal in the circumstances of the case. The relevant para from the decision reported in 2005 (1) PLJR (SC) 1 is being quoted here : "the taumatic experience in which a young girl lost her life, must have left the faces of the assailants imprinted in his memory which would not have diminished or got eroded within a period of only 30 days. " 19. The relevant para from the decision reported in 2003 SCC (Cr) 770 runs as follows: "the circumstances in which the occurrence took place were such that the facial expressions of the assailants would get embossed in the memory of PW (injured) and his parents and mere lapse of 47 days in holding the TIP would not erase those facial expressions from their memory. " 20. Both the decisions referred to above by the learned State counsel have much similarity with the case. " 20. Both the decisions referred to above by the learned State counsel have much similarity with the case. In the case before me also there is evidence that during the commission of dacoity the dacoits had brutally assaulted the inmates of the house, as a result of which, one of the inmates Kameshwar singh died and, therefore, the circumstances was such that even after a lapse of about 18-19 days there was little chance of forgetting the faces of the dacoits by the witnesses. In such view of the matter, I hold that the delay caused in holding TIP is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and in the circumstances of the case even on the basis of single identification conviction can be sustained. 21. The learned defence counsel has further argued that in holding TIP of the accused the mandatory provision as laid down under Sec.236 of the bihar Police Manual, 1978, has not been followed. He submitted that as per sub clause (7) of Sec.236 of the bihar police Manual, 1978, it is mandatory that one suspect is to be mixed with 8-10 other persons and not that the suspects are mixed with a smaller group of persons. He submitted that since the mandatory provision of law has not been followed, as such, the entire TIP is illegal and on this ground, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.1 am of the opinion that this argument of the learned defence counsel is without any basis as I have gone through the evidence of PW 6 Sri R. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Civil Court, gaya, who had conducted TIP of the suspects in jail and after going through the deposition I find that no such question was asked from him that the TIP was conducted in a group and not separately and, therefore, I hold that this argument of the learned defence counsel is without any basis. 22. Now, I would like to examine whether there are other circumstances on record to establish that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. In this regard, there are confessional statements of appellants Munna Manjhi, Raju manjhi, Chun Chun Manjhi and Anil rajak on record. 22. Now, I would like to examine whether there are other circumstances on record to establish that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. In this regard, there are confessional statements of appellants Munna Manjhi, Raju manjhi, Chun Chun Manjhi and Anil rajak on record. The confessional statement of Munna manjhi is Exhibit-7, confessional statement of Raju Manjhi is exhibit-7/1, confessional statement of chun Chun Manjhi is Exhibit-7/2 and confessional statement of Anil Rajak is exhibit-7/4. (Confessional statement of binod Manjhi, Exhibit-7/3 is not relevant as he is not appellant before me ). 23. It has been argued on behalf of the defence counsel that these confessional statements are not admissible in evidence as the same were made before the police. Against, this argument, the submission of the learned State counsel was that since the confessional statement of all the above said accused are followed by recovery of looted article, as such, the same is admissible under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. From the evidence of the I. O. (PW 10) it appears that on the basis of the confessional statement of the above mentioned accused he conducted raid on their houses and from there he had recovered the looted money as per the seizure lists which have been marked Exhibits 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 and 8/5. Since the confessional statements of the accused is followed by recovery of the looted money, as such, I am of the view that the same is admissible in evidence as per Sec.27 of the Evidence act. Thus, I am of the opinion that the confessional statement of the appellants can be legally used against them so far the recovery of looted money from their respective houses is concerned. The identification of appellant Munna manjhi, Chun Chun Manjhi, Anil Rajak in Court as well as in TIP coupled with the recovery of looted money from their houses on the basis of their confessional statements fully establishes that they had participated in the commission of dacoity on the alleged date of occurrence. The identification of appellant Munna manjhi, Chun Chun Manjhi, Anil Rajak in Court as well as in TIP coupled with the recovery of looted money from their houses on the basis of their confessional statements fully establishes that they had participated in the commission of dacoity on the alleged date of occurrence. It is true that appellant Raju Manjhi was not identified by any witnesses either in TIP or in court but on the basis of his confessional statement (Exhibit-7/1) looted amount that is rupees four hundred was recovered from his house as per Exhibit-8/4, so, his participation in the alleged occurrence of dacoity is also established. So far appellant ram Pati Manjhi is concerned, it appears that neither he has confessed his guilt nor any looted article was recovered form his house but he was identified by PW 3 kamdeo Singh in Court as well as in TIP and there is no reasonable ground to believe that he has been falsely implicated in this case, as such, I hold that his participation in the alleged occurrence is also well established. 24. One more circumstance which establishes the complicity of these appellants in the occurrence of dacoity is the recovery of two blood stained wooden danda from the orchard of Kama! Jain as per seizure list (Exhibit-8) prepared by pw 10. This appears to be very vital piece of evidence so far as the participation of these appellants in the alleged dacoity is concerned because it has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the dacoits had assaulted the deceased Kameshwar Singh with wooden danda. From the perusal of the confessional statement of the appellants (Exhibits-7 to 7/4) it appears that practically all the appellants have stated in their confessional statements that before going to the house of the informant for committing dacoity they had plucked wooden piece from a mango tree from the orchard and after committing dacoity they threw the wooden pieces in the orchard of kamal Jain. Thus, the recovery of wooden pieces as per Exhibit-8 having blood stain mark establishes beyond doubt that the dacoits while assaulting the inmates of the house of the informant including the deceased had used those wooden pieces and that is why the blood was found on the wooden pieces. It further finds support from the report of Forensic Science laboratory (Exhibit-X ). 25. It further finds support from the report of Forensic Science laboratory (Exhibit-X ). 25. Thus, from the scrutiny of the evidence, I find that there is sufficient materials on record to hold that the appellants were the dacoits who had committed dacoity in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence and during the commission of dacoity they had assaulted the inmates of the house as a result of which one of the injured, namely, Kameshwar Singh died. I, therefore, hold that the appellants were rightly found guilty under Sec.396 of the IPC and they have been rightly convicted by the trial Gourt under Section 396 of the IPC. Point No. III: 26. Appellants Chunchun Manjhi, munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak and Raju manjhi also stand charged under Section 412 of the IPC and as per the findings of the learned trial Court, they all were found guilty for the said offence. The question is whether this finding of the trial Court is correct or not. In this regard, I have to say that while discussing point No. II, I have found that on the basis of the confessional statement of the above named accused recovery of stolen money has been made by the IO from their respective houses. There is no need of repeating the evidence of the witnesses again and again. But at this stage, I would like to point out once again that on the basis of confessional statement of Munna Manjhi (vide Ext.-7] recovery of rupees five hundred was made by the IO as per the seizure list (Ext.-8/1 ). Likewise, on the basis of the confessional statement of Chun Chun Manjhi (vide Ext.7/2) recovery of rupees five hundred was made from his house by the I. O. as per the seizure list (Ext.-8/2 ). This recovery further finds corroboration from the evidence of PW 4 Amit Kumar and PW 5 Mahendra Sharma. The evidence of to. further establishes that on the basis of the confessional statement of Raju manjhi (vide Ext.-7/1) and on the basis of the confessional statement of Anil Rajak (vide Ext.-4) recovery of rupees four hundred and five hundred respectively were made from the houses of appellant Raju manjhi and Anil Rajak as per the seizure list (Exts.8/4 and 8/5 ). further establishes that on the basis of the confessional statement of Raju manjhi (vide Ext.-7/1) and on the basis of the confessional statement of Anil Rajak (vide Ext.-4) recovery of rupees four hundred and five hundred respectively were made from the houses of appellant Raju manjhi and Anil Rajak as per the seizure list (Exts.8/4 and 8/5 ). Since the above recoveries were made on the basis of confessional statement of appellant Chun chun Manjhi, Munna Manjhi, Anil Rajak and Raju, Manjhi and, as such, the same is admissible under Sec.27 of the evidence Act and, so, I do not feel any difficulty in holding that the prosecution has been fully able to prove that from the houses of Chun Chun, Manjhi, Munna manjhi, Anil Rajak and Raju Manjhi looted money were recovered, as such, I hold that the above named four appellants were rightly convicted under Sec.412 of the IPC besides Sec.396 of the IPC. 27. Before concluding the judgment, I would like to discuss one of the plea raised on behalf of the appellant Anil rajak @ Anil Kumar Rajak. It has been argued on behalf of appellant Anil Rajak that at the time of recording of the statement of appellant Anil Rajak under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his age was recorded as 18 years and the Court has also assessed his age as 18 years old meaning thereby that on the date of occurrence he was definitely below 16 years of age and, so, he was a juvenile offender, as such, according to the settled principle of law no substantive sentence can be passed against him. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the decision Bhola Bhagat and Ore. V/s. The State of Bihar and Upendra kumar V/s. The State of Bihar. In the case reported in 2005 SCC (Cr) 778, the principle which was formulated in the case of Bhola Bhagat V/s. The State of Bihar, (1997)8 SCC 720 and Gopi Nath Ghosh V/s. The state of West Bengal were followed and thereafter following observations have been made : the course this Court adopted "in Gopi Nath Ghosh case as also in Bhola Bhagat case was to sustain the conviction but, at the same time, quash the sentence awarded to the convict. In the present case, at this distant time, the question of the referring the appellant to the Juvenile Board does not arise. Following the aforesaid decisions, we would sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offences for which he has been found guilty by the court of Sessions, as affirmed by the High Court, at the same time, however, the sentence awarded to appellant is quashed and the appeal is allowed to this extent. " 28. Since the case of Anil Rajak @ anil Kumar Rajak appears to be similar to the case cited in the decisions referred to above, I am of the opinion that similar course should be adopted in this case also as appellant Anil Rajak is a juvenile offender and, therefore, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant Anil rajak @ Anil Kumar Rajak should be maintained but the sentence passed against him should be quashed and to this extent the appeal (Cr. Appeal No.453 of 2001) preferred by the appellant Anil rajak should be allowed. 29. In the result, I do not find any merit in Cr. Appeal No.447 of 2001 (preferred by appellant Raju Manjhi) and Cr. Appeal No.539 of 2001 (preferred by appellants 1. Munna Manjhi, 2. Chun Chun manjhi and 3. Ram Pati Manjhi ). Accordingly, both the above mentioned cr. Appeals are hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under Sections 396 and 412 of the IPC are hereby confirmed and upheld. Appellant Raju Manjhi (Cr. Appeal no.447 of 2001, Munna Manjhi and rampati Manjhi (Cr. Appeal No.539 of 2001) are on bail, as such, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Appellant Chun Chun Manjhi (Cr. Appeal No.539 of 2001) is in custody. He is directed to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 30. So far the Cr. Appeal No.453 of 2001 (preferred by Anil Kumar Rajak @ anil Rajak) is concerned, his conviction under Sections 396/412 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed but the sentence passed against him under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and the appeal i. e. , Cr. Appeal no.453 of 2001 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal no.453 of 2001 is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appellant Anil kumar Rajak @ Anil Rajak is on bail, He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Appeal partly allowed.