JUDGMENT These three Criminal Appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, passed by the trial court, as such, all the three are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All these three criminal appeals, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter Cr.P.C.), are directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.1985, passed in C.B.I. Case No. 170 of 1975, C.B.I. Case No. 79 of 1976 and C.B.I. Case No. 138 of 1977, by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby the appellant Kabul Singh is convicted under Section 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity hereinafter I.P.C.), appellant Raj Kumar is convicted under Section 395, 412 and 414 of I.P.C., and each of the appellants Teerath Singh, Jaswant Singh, Man Singh and Surta Nand Nautiyal, is convicted under Section 412 and 414 of the I.P.C. Appellant Kabul Singh is sentenced under Section 395 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he is directed to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. He (Kabul Singh) is also sentenced under Section 412 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of which, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months. Sentence awarded to appellant Raj Kumar under Section 395 and 412 of I.P.C. is the same as that of appellant Kabul Singh. He (Raj Kumar) is also sentenced under Section 414 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Each of the appellants Teerath Singh, Jaswant Singh, Man Singh and Surta Nand Nautiyal, is sentenced under Section 412 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four yeas and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of which, each one of them is directed to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. Each one of these four appellants is also sentenced under Section 414 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Sentences are directed by the trial court to run concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. PROSECUTION STORY : 4. Each one of these four appellants is also sentenced under Section 414 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Sentences are directed by the trial court to run concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. PROSECUTION STORY : 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a dacoity was committed in the intervening night of 9th and 10th October, 1974, in the Archaeological Museum situated at Jageshwar Temple, District Almora. It is alleged by the prosecution that some 9-10 persons including accused Raj Kumar, Bali Ram (died during trial), Surta Nand Nautiyal (died during the period of appeal), Kabul Singh, one Jagdish Bahadur Saxena and Virendra Pal Singh along with others participated in the dacoity on said date. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt (informant), the Chowkidar of the Museum of Archaeological Survey of India (hereinafter referred as A.S.I.) was assaulted by the dacoits at the time of commission of dacoity, and his hands and feet were tied with ropes and his mouth gagged with piece of cloth. He was threatened at the point of knife that he would be killed if he dared to raise alarm. The said Chowkidar was confined by the dacoits in a small room before they left the place of incident. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt, the Chowkidar sustained injuries in the accident. According to the prosecution story, dacoits broke open the doors of the godown of the Museum, and decamped with an ‘Ashtha Dhatu’ (eight metal) idol (material Ext. 3) of PAWAN RAJA. The said idol was 4 feet 6 inches in height and 112 kilograms in weight. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt lodged the First Information Report (Ext. A-72) of the incident in the morning,a t about 9.45 a.m. on 10.10.1974, with Police Station Almora, which is at a distance of some 40 kilometers from Jageshwar Temple. In said report he mentioned that one of the bandits was Baram Singh, who was known to him. Initially, the investigation was with revenue police officials (in Uttaranchal hills, in certain areas, revenue officials are given police powers), but later it was handed over to Criminal Investigation Department. However, even said department failed to show achievements. Finally, on the request of the State, made to the Central Government, investigation was taken up by Central Bureau of Investigation, vide Notification No. 228/33/74-AVD (ii) datd 06.03.1975, issued by the Government of India. However, even said department failed to show achievements. Finally, on the request of the State, made to the Central Government, investigation was taken up by Central Bureau of Investigation, vide Notification No. 228/33/74-AVD (ii) datd 06.03.1975, issued by the Government of India. A formal First Information Report No. 10/75-CIU was registered on 24.03.1975 at Delhi office of the C.B.I. 5. According to the prosecution, the stolen idol after the incident, was initially kept in the field of PW-25 Santokh Singh, in village Misherwala, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar) from where it was taken to Dehradun by appellant Raj Kumar and appellant Kabul Singh and their associates. On reaching Dehradun, the idol was taken to the field of PW-36 Chandan Singh of village Jhajra, where appellant Surta Nand Nautiyal, appellant Raj Kumar and Bali Ram dug a pit and kept the idol concealed in it. On 21.02.1975, appellants Teerath Singh, Man Singh and Jaswant Singh visited Dehradun where they met appellants Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal, who were accompanied with Bali Ram. The negotiation took place between the parties, for sale of the stolen idol. Consequently, on 26.02.1975, the deal got finalized at Delhi, and it ws agreed between the two sets of appellants that Bali Ram and appellants Surta Nand Nautiyal and Raj Kumar would sell the idol to appellants Teerath Singh, Man Singh and Jaswant Singh, for a sum of Rs. 62,000/- Thereafter, the idol was transported from Dehradun to Delhi in a taxi bearing registration No. USV/9735, which was arranged by Bali Ram. PW-32 Surendra Singh drove the taxi in which the idol was kept in the back seat and Bali Ram and appellant Raj Kumar accompanied it. The idol was loaded in the taxi by appellant Raj Kumar, appellant Surta Nand Nautiyal and Bali Ram at village Jhajra, Dehradun, on 28.02.1975, and the taxi reached Delhi on 01.03.1975. Appellant Surta Nand Nautiyal followed in a bus and he too reached Delhi on 01.03.1975. On the very day, Bali Ram and appellant Raj Kumar, delivered the stolen idol to appellants Teerath Singh and Man Singh. In Delhi, initially, the idol was taken to the house of appellant Jaswant Singh at his residence house No. 111, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. There it was packed in a wooden crate and transported to house no. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, Delhi, owned by PW-39 Paramjeet Singh @ Pammi. In Delhi, initially, the idol was taken to the house of appellant Jaswant Singh at his residence house No. 111, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. There it was packed in a wooden crate and transported to house no. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, Delhi, owned by PW-39 Paramjeet Singh @ Pammi. A room was taken in said house on rent by appellants Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh. Out of the sale consideration agreed between the above two sets of appellants, Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 01.03.1975 by appellant Teerath Singh to appellant Raj Kumar, as a part payment in the presence of Bali Ram, Surta Nand Nautiyal, Man Singh and Jaswant Singh. Second instalment of Rs. 15,000/- was paid on 15.03.1975 to Bali Ram and appellant Surta Nand Nautiyal by appellant Teerath Singh at Hotel Malabar, Delhi. Again, on 25.03.1975, appellant Surta Nand Nautiyal visited Delhi, and received Rs. 500/- from appellant Teerath Singh in the presence of appellant Man Singh in Hotel Eagle, Delhi. 6. During investigation, appellants Teerath Singh, Man Singh and Jaswant Singh were arrested on 01.04.1975, and the stolen idol of PAWAN RAJA was recovered from a room of house no. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, Delhi, on pointing out of appellant Teerath Singh, while he was in police custody. Appellant Kabul Singh was thereafter arrested on 02.03.1976 and was kept ‘BAPARDA’ (muffled face). After arrest of rest of the appellants, who were also kept ‘BAPARDA’ (muffled faces), when asked to be present for identification parade, they refused to take part in identification proceedings. (Meanwhile, it appears that they were granted bail). On completion of the investigation, PW-57 M.P. Sharma, the Investigating Officer, submitted charge sheets (Ext. A-106 and Ext. A-107) against appellants. Supplementary charge sheets (Ext. A-113, Ext. A-114 and Ext. A-115) were also submitted by PW-25 S.K. Bhatnagar Dy. S.P./SPE/C.B.I., New Delhi, againt Bali Ram and appellants Surta Nand Nautiyal and Raj Kumar. CHARGE 7. On completion of the investigation, PW-57 M.P. Sharma, the Investigating Officer, submitted charge sheets (Ext. A-106 and Ext. A-107) against appellants. Supplementary charge sheets (Ext. A-113, Ext. A-114 and Ext. A-115) were also submitted by PW-25 S.K. Bhatnagar Dy. S.P./SPE/C.B.I., New Delhi, againt Bali Ram and appellants Surta Nand Nautiyal and Raj Kumar. CHARGE 7. The trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the counsel for the accused persons, framed charge on 04.09.1976 (paper No. 6), against appellant Kabul Singh of offences punishable under Section 395 and 412 of I.P.C., on 22.09.1997 against accused Teerath Singh, Jaswant Singh and Man Singh, regarding offences punishable under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C. (paper No. 7), and on 10.10.1997 against accused Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal and Bali Ram, relating to offences punishable under Section 395, 412 and 414 of I.P.C. (paper No. 13 in trial court’s record). All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Bali Ram died during trial. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION 8. In support of their case, the prosecution got examined before trial court as many as 58 witnesses namely, PW-1 Jageshwar Pal Singh (a Railway employee); PW-2 Hans Raj Singh; PW-3 Constable Faggu Singh (a member of arresting party); PW-4 Madan Gopal (telephone operator in Punjab Hotel); PW-5 Madan Lal (Proprietor Kashmir Hindu Hotel, Delhi); PW-6 Om Prakash (Proprietor Gautam Hindu Hotel, Delhi); PW-7 Devi Chand (waiter of Gautam Hindu Hotel); PW-8 Surjeet Singh (Manager, Malabar Hotel, Delhi); PW-9 O.P. Bhatia (Manager Hotel Eagle, Delhi); PW-10 Luxman Das Virmani (Proprietor Prince Hotel, Dehradun); PW-11 Tilak Raj Sachdeva; PW-12 K.B. Nagpal (Manager, Hotel Eagle, Delhi); PW-13 Prem Chand (Driver); PW-14 Shanti Swaroop Kulsreshta (Dy. S.P., A.S.I.); PW-15 S.S. Saini (Conservation Assistant, A.S.I.); PW-16 Faggu Ram (servant of Chandan Singh); PW-17 P.K. Dham (Assistant Controller, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi); PW-18 B.B. Gupta (the then Metropolitan Magistrate); PW-19 Dr. P.S. Bhargava; PW-20 Prakash Chand (Chemist); PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt (informant); PW-22 Subhash Chandra (Draftsman C.P.W.D.); PW-23 Bhupendra Singh (Proprietor M/s Vasan Motors); PW-24 Luxmi Lal Shah (Sr. Consevation Assistant, A.S.I.); PW-25 Santokh Singh (resident of village Misherwala); PW-26 Dharam Singh; PW-27 Dooni Chand (Denter); PW-28 Roorik (Painter); PW-29 Shyam Lal; PW-30 K.C. Asthana (Inspector Central Excise); PW-31 Mohd. P.S. Bhargava; PW-20 Prakash Chand (Chemist); PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt (informant); PW-22 Subhash Chandra (Draftsman C.P.W.D.); PW-23 Bhupendra Singh (Proprietor M/s Vasan Motors); PW-24 Luxmi Lal Shah (Sr. Consevation Assistant, A.S.I.); PW-25 Santokh Singh (resident of village Misherwala); PW-26 Dharam Singh; PW-27 Dooni Chand (Denter); PW-28 Roorik (Painter); PW-29 Shyam Lal; PW-30 K.C. Asthana (Inspector Central Excise); PW-31 Mohd. Yaseen (Waiter Majestic Bar, Dehradun); PW-32 Surendra Singh (Taxi Driver); PW-33 Nar Ram (Waiter Alka Hotel, Ranikhet); PW-34 Puran Chandra Sharma (Scribe of report); PW-35 Fakir Chand; PW-36 Chandan Singh (resident of village Jhajra); PW-37 Abdul Zalil (declared hostile); PW-38 M.C. Joshi (Director Antiquities, A.S.I.); PW-39 Paramjeet Singh (owner of house no. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, Delhi); PW-40 Devi Prasad Aggarwal (Proprietor Alka Hotel, Ranikhet); PW-41 Dr. M.L. Aggarwal (Medical Officer); PW-42 Krishna Nand Bhatt; PW-43 Daya Krishna Bhatt; PW-44 Jagdesh Chandra (declared hostile); PW-45 Trilok Nath Chawla; PW-46 Sunil Kumar Gupta (Assistant Superintendent, Tihar Jail); PW-47 Bhagwati Prasad (Waiter, Prince Hotel, Dehradun); PW-48 G.N. Sehgal (Director, Forensic Science Lab.); PW-49 Dinesh Kumar Gupta; PW-50 Puran Chand (servant of Paramjeet); PW-51 Pramod Singh (photographer); PW-52 Mohd. Ali (servant of appellant Jaswant Singh); PW-53 Chandra Dutt Bisht; PW-54 O.P. Chatwal [Dy. S.P. (Arresting Officer)]; PW-55 Sardari Lal (S.P., C.B.I.); PW-56 S.K. Bhatnagar (the then Dy. S.P.); PW-57 M.P. Sharma (who concluded the investigation) and PW-58 Ali Kausar. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION 9. In the form of documentary evidence following documents were produced before the trial court by the prosecution in support of their case viz. personal search memo dt. 02.03.1976 (Ext. A-1); Copy of general diary, report No. 22 dt. 02.03.1976 (Ext. A-2); copy of general diary report No. 27 dt. 02.03.1976 (Ext. A-3); seizure memo of visitor’s register of Punjab Hotel (Ext. A-6); seizure memo of visitor’s register of Gautam Hindu Hotel (Ext. A-7); seizure memo of visitor’s register of Hotel Malabar (Ext. A-10); seizure memo of bill book of Hotel Malabar (Ext. A-11); seizure memo of bill book of Hotel Eagle (Ext. A-14); seizure memo of visitor’s register of Hotel Eagle (Ext. A-15); seizure memo of visitor’s register Prince Hotel (Ext. A-16); copy of rules of said Hotel (Ext. A-17); letter to S.S. Saini (Ext. A-18); letter of Dy. S.P. C.B.I. addressed to Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-19 and Ext. A-102); copy of order of Metropolitan Magistrate (Ext. A-20); letter of Superintendent Tihar Jail (Ext. A-15); seizure memo of visitor’s register Prince Hotel (Ext. A-16); copy of rules of said Hotel (Ext. A-17); letter to S.S. Saini (Ext. A-18); letter of Dy. S.P. C.B.I. addressed to Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-19 and Ext. A-102); copy of order of Metropolitan Magistrate (Ext. A-20); letter of Superintendent Tihar Jail (Ext. A-21); statement of Bali Ram (Ext. A-22 & Ext. A-23); identification memo of Bali Ram (Ext. A-24); statement of accused Raj Kumar, dt. 03.05.1975 (Ext. A-25 & A-26); statement of accused Surta Nand Nautiyal, dt. 03.05.1975 (Ext. A-27 & A-28); letter of Superintendent of C.B.I. (Ext. A-103); order of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-29); letter of Dy. S.P. C.B.I. (Ext. A-30 & Ext. A-104); order of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-31); statement of accused Raj Kumar, dt. 31.05.1975 (Ext. A-32); statement of accused Surta Nand Nautiyal, dt. 31.05.1975 (Ext. A-33); statement of Bali Ram dt. 31.05.1975 (Ext. A-34); memo of test identification (Ext. A-35); letter of Dy. S.P. C.B.I., Delhi (Ext. A-36 & Ext. A-105); order of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-37); application of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-38); statement of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-43); application of Uttam Singh (Ext. A-39); statement of Uttam Singh (Ext. A-44); application of accused Jaswant Singh (Ext. A-40); statement of accused Jaswant Singh (Ext. A-45); application of accused Man Singh (Ext. A-41); statement of accused Man Singh (Ext. A-46); application of Saran Singh (Ext. A-42); statement of Saran Singh (Ext. A-47); order dt. 17.05.1975 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-48); order dt. 29.05.1975 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Deli (Ext. A-51); order dt. 28.05.1975 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-50); another application of Uttam Singh (Ext. A-52); orders dt. 30.05.1975 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-58, Ext. A-60., Ext. A-61, Ext. A-63 and Ext. A-64); application of accused Man Singh (Ext. A-53); application of Amarjeet Singh (Ext. A-55); another application of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-56); application of M.P. Sharma, Inspector (Ext. A-65); letter to Superintendent Tihar Jail (Ext. A-66); memo of test identification (Ext. A-67 & A-68); seizure memo (Ext. A-70, Ext. A-78, Ext. A-84, Ext. A-87, Ext. A-92 & Ext. A-108); cash memo of medical store (Ext. A-71); First Information Report dt. 10.10.1974 (Ext. A-72); parting out memo of Man Singh (Ext. A-73); parting out memo of Saran Singh (Ext. A-74); parting out memo of accused Jaswant Singh (Ext. A-75); parting out memo of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-70, Ext. A-78, Ext. A-84, Ext. A-87, Ext. A-92 & Ext. A-108); cash memo of medical store (Ext. A-71); First Information Report dt. 10.10.1974 (Ext. A-72); parting out memo of Man Singh (Ext. A-73); parting out memo of Saran Singh (Ext. A-74); parting out memo of accused Jaswant Singh (Ext. A-75); parting out memo of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-76); site plan of place where idol concealed in village Jhajra, Dehradun (Ext. A-77); Information memo of accused Teerath Singh (Ext. A-79); information memo of Ram Kishan (Ext. A-80); recovery memo (Ext. A-81); cash memo Alka Hotel (Ext. A-83); medical injury report regarding Keshav Dutt Bhatt (Ext. A-85); memo of hammer (Ext. A-86); Forensic Science Lab Report (Ext. A-89); letter of Director, Forensic Science Lab, New Delhi (Ext. A-90); letter to C.B.I. (Ext. A-97); order of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Ext. A-91); site map of place of dacoity (Ext. A-93); recovery of damaged lock (Ext. A-94); recovery of iron piece (Ext. A-95); recovery of rubber gloves (Ext. A-96); search list of goods (Ext. A-98); order of Secretary, Govt. of India (Ext. A-99); check report of F.I.R. (C.B.I.) (Ext. A-100); letter to Dy. S.P., C.B.I. (Ext. A-100A); sample of seal (Ext. A-101); charge sheets (Ext. A-106 & Ext. A-107); copy of check report of F.I.R. (Ext. A-109); report of Police Station Vikas Nagar (Ext. A-110); memo of goods (Ext. A-110 A); letter of Inspector C.B.I. (Ext. 111 & Ext. 112) and supplementary charge sheets (Ext. A-113, Ext. A-114 & Ext. A-115). STATEMENT U/s 313 Cr.P.C. & DEFENCE WITNESSES 10. All the above documentary evidence was put to the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused persons alleged the same to be false and further alleged that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. In defence DW-1 N.K. Joshi (Dy. A-114 & Ext. A-115). STATEMENT U/s 313 Cr.P.C. & DEFENCE WITNESSES 10. All the above documentary evidence was put to the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused persons alleged the same to be false and further alleged that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. In defence DW-1 N.K. Joshi (Dy. Jailer, Sab Jail, Haldwani, was examined by the defence to show that beard, moustaches and hair of appellant Kabul Singh were cut); DW-2 Agya Ram (partner in farming with Kabul Singh, examined to prove that at the time of arrest of Kabul Singh he was having hair, beard and moustaches); DW-3 Kishan Lal (who testified that some 9-10 years back, appellant Jaswant Singh handed over the keys of his shop to him for being delivered to his servant); DW-4 Guru Charan Singh (Sevadar of Govindwal Gurudwara, Amritsar, who stated that appellant Kabul Singh stayed at Govindwal Gurudwara for the period 27.02.1975 to 01.03.1975); DW-5 Dharma Nand (who stated that he accompanied marriage party of appellant Raj Kumar to Delhi in the month of December some 10-12 years back and stayed there in Punjab Hotel) and DW-6 Beer Singh (resident of village Jhajra) were got examined. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW 11. Before further discussions it is pertinent to mention here, the relevant provision of law regarding the offences, of which the appellants are charged. Sec. 391 of I.P.C. defines the offence of ‘dacoity’, and reads as under : “391. - When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.” “390. - When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.” “390. - Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.” Section 395 of I.P.C. provides that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 412 of I.P.C. provides punishment for dishonestly receiving property stolen in commission of dacoity. It reads as under : “412. - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possessiokn whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly recieves from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 414 of I.P.C. provides punishment for assisting in concealing or disposing of the stolen property. It reads as follows : “414. -Whoever voluntarily assits in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished wiht imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of particular case. Illustration (a) of Section 114 of said Act, reads as under : “The court may presume - (a) that a man who is in possessiokn of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. (b) ..................” IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE PROPERTY OF THIS CASE 12. According to PW-38 Mr. M.C. Joshi, Director Antiquities, Archeological Survey of India, the idol was a rare art piece made during the period between 9th to 10th century A.D. He further states that this idol originally belonged to Dandeshwar group of temples from where it was brought to Jageshwar temple for security purposes. He further stated that the estimated value of the aforesaid idol is One Million U.S. Dollars. 13. PW-14 Shanti Swaroop Kulsreshta, Dy. Superintendent of A.S.I. has identified the idol (material Ext. 3) and stated that he had seen the idol in Jageshwar Temple in the year 1960. PW-15 S.S. Saini, Conservation Assistant of A.S.I. has proved letter (Ext. A-18) whereby underordfers of Mr. LO.K. Srinivasan, Dy. Superintendent of A.S.I., Agra, the idol was directed to be kept in the Museum at jageshwar Temple. PW-24 Laxmi Lal Shah, Sr. Conservation Assistant of A.S.I., Agra, has tated that under orders of Arch;eologist, he went to inspect the idols kept at Jageshwar Temple in October 1974 (after the incident) and found that Ashtha Dhatu (eight metal) idol of ‘PAWAN RAJA’, was missing. DISCUSSION OF OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR PARTIES (A) RE : APPELLANT KABUL SINGH 14. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt (informant) Chowkidar of the Museum has stated that in the intervening night of 9-10 of October, 1974, between 2.30 a.m. and 3.00 a.m., some 9-10 miscreants came to museum and knocked the door of his cabin. When he came out, he saw the miscreants, one of them looking like accused Baram Singh (probably died before the charge sheet is filed). This witness further states that his hands and feet were tied by the miscreants and his mouth was gagged with piece of cloth. The witness further states that he was confined in a cabin. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt further states that the miscreants broke open locks of Museum and from godown of the Museum, the idol of PAWAN RAJA was found missing next day. The witness further states that he was confined in a cabin. PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt further states that the miscreants broke open locks of Museum and from godown of the Museum, the idol of PAWAN RAJA was found missing next day. This witness has proved the First Information Report (Ext. A-72) lodged by him on 10.10.1974, at 9.45 a.m., with Police Station Almora, which is at a distance of some 40 kilometers form jageshwar Temple. PW-34 Puran Sharma, scribe of the report (Ext. A-72) has corroborated the fact relating to lodging of First Information Report. PW-41 Dr. M.L. Aggarwal, who is Medical Officer of Har Govind Pant Hospital, Almora has stated that on 10.10.1974, he examined the injuries on the person of Keshav Dutt Bhatt (PW-21) and recorded the same in (Ext. A-85). Said document further corroborates the statement of PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt. 15. PW-1 Jageshwar Pal Singh, who is a Railway employee, posted at Moradabad Railway Station has stated that on Diwali night in the year 1972, he heard accused/appellant Kabul Singh and 3-4 other pesons talking about an idol. This witness has further stated that Kabul Singh is a mora Sardar and he knew him as he was a friend of his brother-in-law Virendra Singh Thakur. PW-2 Hans Raj Singh has testified that accused/appellants Kabul Singh and Raj Kumar were known to Virendra Singh as they used to come to him. The witness statees that Virendra Singh is his maternal uncle. 16. PW-25 Santokh Singh, resident of village Misher Wala, P.W. Kashipur, District Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar) has stated on oath that accused/appellant Kabul Singh along with 4-5 associates came to his residence at Misher Wala in an Ambassador car with an idol, and requested him to keep the idol for couple of days. This witness has fruther stated that after about 5-6 days, Kabul Singh and his associates took the idol with them. PW-13 Prem Chand, a bus driver, has identified that accused/appellant Kabul Singh and Raj Kumar visited Bareilly around Diwali night in the year 1974, and were talking about a stolen idol. 17. PW-3 Constable Faggu Singh was a member of arresting party, who arrested accused/appellant Kabul Singh. This witness has proved memo of arrest (Ext. A-1) and stated that Kabul Singh, after his arrest was kept BAPARDA (muffled face). 17. PW-3 Constable Faggu Singh was a member of arresting party, who arrested accused/appellant Kabul Singh. This witness has proved memo of arrest (Ext. A-1) and stated that Kabul Singh, after his arrest was kept BAPARDA (muffled face). This witness furhter states that entry in general diary in this regard is also made, which are Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3 on the record. PW-18 B.B. Gupta, who was Meteropolitan Magistrate at Delhi in March 1976, has stated that he fixed 24.03.1976 as the date for test identification of accused/appeallant Kabul Singh, vide order (Ext. A-65), he went to Tihar Jail, but accused/appellant Kabul Singh refused to participate in test identification parade. Said fact was recorded in Ext. A-67. 18. On behalf of the appellant Kabul Singh, it is argued that neither Kabul Singh is named in the first information report, not he was identified by any witness, nor was he arrested immediatley after the incident, as such, the prosecution evidence as against him should not be believed. I do not see substance in the argument. In a case of dacoity, like the present one, it is not necessary for convicting the accused that he must have been named in the first information report. The appellant Kabul Singh could have taken benefit of not being named only if it is established that informant knew him from before. As far as, the test identification is concerned, since, Kabul Singh himself refused to participate in the identification proceedings, as such, he cannot take benefit of said fact. And, as to the point that he was not arrested immediately after the dacoity that does not give him any benefit, and if that is accepted all these criminals, who keep them hiding from arrest would never be convicted. 19. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the appellant Kabul Singh contended that in the first information report, PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt has nowhere said that the miscreants were SARDARS. I do not see force in this contention either. Reason being that PW-1 Jageshwar Pal Singh has stted that Kabul Singh was a mona Sardar, as such, the informant has no occasion to mention him as SIKH OR SARDAR in the first information report. 20. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant Kabul Singh that PW-33 Nar Ram, Waiter of Alka Hotel, Ranikhet, has also not identified him. Reason being that PW-1 Jageshwar Pal Singh has stted that Kabul Singh was a mona Sardar, as such, the informant has no occasion to mention him as SIKH OR SARDAR in the first information report. 20. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant Kabul Singh that PW-33 Nar Ram, Waiter of Alka Hotel, Ranikhet, has also not identified him. Perusal of examination of PW-33 only shows that he has been produced to corroborate the fact that accused Raj Kumar was taken by the C.B.I. to said Hotel to verify that he along with others stayed in Alka Hotel, after the incident. The witness has naturally stated in his cross examination that when C.B.I. asked him, if he can identify the person who stayed in the Hotel that night, he replied in negative. In the opinion of this Court, answer of the witness is natural as his evidence was recorded in the year 1982 i.e. after a period of eight years of the incident. And that fact does not make differnece in the case. In view of principle of law laid down in Daya Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2001 (3) Supreme Court Cases 468, it is clear that where accused on his own volition, refuses for submission for test identificiation parade, prosecution cannot be blamed for not holding the test identification parade. 21. From the above discussion of evidence, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly found accused/appellant Kabul Singh @ Khan @ Pahalwan guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C.. But, since, recovery of the stolen article is not made from him, as such, the conviction of accused/appellant Kabul Singh cannot be said to be lawful, as to the offence punishable under Section 412 of I.P.C., particularly, when he is found guilty of offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. (B) RE : APPELLANT RAJ KUMAR 22. Apart from what has been discussed above regarding evidence adducted by PW-21 Keshav Dutt Bhatt, Chowkidar of the Museum; PW-2 Hans Raj Singh; PW-13 Prem Chand, there are other eyewitnesses who have adduced evidence against appellant Raj Kumar. 23. PW-25 Santokh Singh has stated that along with Kabul Singh, accused/appellants Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal also came to him to collect back the idol, from vilalge Mishar Wala. 23. PW-25 Santokh Singh has stated that along with Kabul Singh, accused/appellants Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal also came to him to collect back the idol, from vilalge Mishar Wala. This witness correctly identified all the three accused persons Kabul, Singh, Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal, in the court. From the evidence on record, tere appears that this witness had no enmity with any of the accused persons, nor is there anything on record which indicated that PW-25 Santokh Sigh adduced evidence under undue influence of the investigating agency. 24. PW-17 Mr. P.K. Dham, who was Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi, in the year 1975, has deposed that test identification parade of accused Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal was fixed twice by him i.e. on 03.05.1975 and 31.05.1975, but both of these accused refused to participate in the identification proceedings. This witness proved the report (Ext. A-24 and Ext. A-25) and the statement (Ext. A-32) of Raj Kumar and (Ext. A-27) of Surta Nand Nautiyal. 25. PW-36 Chandan Singh, a resident of village Jhajra, District Dehradun has stated that he knew accused Surta Nand Nautiyal, who was resident of village Devipur across the road of his village Jhajra. This witness testifies that after Diwali, in the year 1974, one Shyam Lal (PW-29) met him and asked him to become partner in a deal of a stolen idol with accused Raj Kumar came to his village for discussions and made the offer of payment of Rs. 20,000/-, if he helped them in a deal of a stolen idol. This witness further states that he was introduced with Raj Kumar by Surta Nand Nautiyal. He identified Raj Kumar in the court. PW-36 Chandan Singh says that he got frightened after hearing the offer, but Surta Nand Nautiyal and his associates got the idol concealed in his field. The witness states that after 3-4 days, he asked Surta Nand Nautiyal to take back the idol, but Surta Nand Nautiyal replied that he would take it back after sometime. Later on this witness came to know that accused Surta Nand Nautiyal and his associates has taken away the idol. The witness states that after 3-4 days, he asked Surta Nand Nautiyal to take back the idol, but Surta Nand Nautiyal replied that he would take it back after sometime. Later on this witness came to know that accused Surta Nand Nautiyal and his associates has taken away the idol. Lastly, the witness states that accused Surta Nand Nautiyal asked accused Teerath Singh to make payment of the idol as advance in a Hotel, but Teerath Singh told him that he would make payment only after Bali Ram and accused Raj Kumar are also present. 26. Statement of PW-36 Chandan Singh gets corroboration from statement of PW-29 Shyam Lal, who has stated that he was known to accused Surta Nand Nautiyal and that Surta Nand introduced him to Bali Ram and accused Raj Kumar. This witness identified Raj Kumar correctly in the court. PW-29 Shyam Lal further states that when Surta Nand Nautiyal made offer to him to become partner in the deal of idol, he refused the offer. This witness further states that PW-36 Chandan Singh also discouraged him. PW-16 Faggu Ram, servant of Chandan Sigh (PW-36) has corroborated the fact that accused Surta Nand Nautiyal and his associates concealed the idol (material Ext. 3) in the field of Chandan Singh and Surta Nand Nautiyal promised this witness to pay Rs. 50/- for that. Howdver, this witness (PW-16) could not identify the idol, he was declared hostile. 27. PW-32 Surendra Singh, a taxi driver, has adduced evidence that accused Raj Kumar, Surta Nand Nautiyal and one Bali Ram, after digging out idol (material Ext. 3) from field of Chandan Singh took it in his taxi from Dehradun to Delhi. PW-35 Fakir Chand has corroborated statement of this witness by saying that he also accompanied Raj Kumar and Bali Ram in the taxi on way to Delhi. Disclosure made by PW-32 Surendra Singh in the case are most important to prosecution case. Howedver, he was declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution on some points. This witness is a driver of the taxi, as mentioned above, in which idol (material Ext. 3) was taken from Dehradun to Delhi and he proved that accused Raj Kumar, Surta Nand Nautiyal and one Bali Ram handed over the idol to accused Teerath Singh and Man Singh at I.T.O. Bridge, Delhi. This witness is a driver of the taxi, as mentioned above, in which idol (material Ext. 3) was taken from Dehradun to Delhi and he proved that accused Raj Kumar, Surta Nand Nautiyal and one Bali Ram handed over the idol to accused Teerath Singh and Man Singh at I.T.O. Bridge, Delhi. PW-32 Surendra Singh states that the idol was wrapped in a blanket of jute. The witness has disclosed registration number of taxi as U.S.V./9375. This witness has also testified that accused Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh met accused Raj Kumar, Surta Nand Nautiyal and Bali Ram at Red Fort, on the same day and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to accused Raj Kumar, as first installment. This witness has further stated that, though, he went to identify accused persons in Tihar Jail but, since they refused to participate in test identification parade, the identification could not take place. As to the second instalment of the amount of consideration agreed between the two sets of appellants, PW-8 Surjeet Singh, Manager of Malabar Hotel, Delhi has stated that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was given by Teerath Singh to Bali Ram. 28. PW-48 G.N. Sehgal, Director of Forensic Science Laboratory has proved the fact tha t the soil scrapped from the idol was found similar with the specimen soil sent by C.B.I., taken from the field of Chandan Singh. This witness has proved his report (Ext. A-89) suggesting that the idol was concealed by accused persons in the field of Chandan Singh, as narrated by prosecution witnesses. 29. On behalf of accused/appellant Raj Kumar it is argued that no test identificiation parade was held, as such, Raj Kumar can not be held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. As already mentioned earlier by this Court that in view of principle of law laid down in Daya Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2001 (3) Supreme Court Cases 468, since, it has been established that accused/appellant Raj Kumar also refused to participate in the test identification parade and said refusal is on record in writing, as such, no benefit can be given to the accused/appellant Raj Kumar either, for not holding test identification parade by the prosecution. 30. Mrs. 30. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant Raj Kumar argued that PW-35 Fakir Chand is a witness of bad character and PW-36 Chandan Singh is a police witness, as such, teir evidence as against the appellant Raj Kumar should not be believed. I do not see force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that merely for the reason that some witness does not possess good character or had been the witness for the State in earlier litigation, his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone. Otherwise also, it is nowhere come if these witnesses have earlier produced by the C.B.I. for prosecution. 31. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant Raj Kumar that his conviction under Section 395 of I.P.C. is bad in law as no charge was framed against him of said offence. From the perusal of record, I found that the submission made is totally misconceived. From the order sheet of the trial court as well as the charge (paper No. 13) framed on 10.10.1977, it is evident that charge of offence punishable under Section 395, 412 and 414 of I.P.C. were framed against accused Raj Kumar on 10.10.1977, and he pleaded not guilty for the same. 32. Lastly, it is aruged on behalf of accused/appellant Raj Kumar that no recovery of stolen article was made from appellant Raj Kumar, as such, the trial court has wrongly found him guilty of said charge. This Court finds substance in this argument for the reason that it is not a prosecution case that recovery of idol is made from possession of appellant Raj Kumar, as such, his conviction and sentence under Section 412 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained, particularly, when he has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. 33. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly found accused/appellant Raj Kumar guilty of offences punishable under Section 395 and 414 of I.P.C., but conviction of accused/appellant Raj Kumar cannot be said to be lawful under Section 412 of I.P.C. as recovery of stolen article has not been established from his possession. (C) RE : APPELLANT JASWANT SINGH 34. PW-52 Mohd. Ali, is servant of accused/appellant Jaswant Singh. (C) RE : APPELLANT JASWANT SINGH 34. PW-52 Mohd. Ali, is servant of accused/appellant Jaswant Singh. This witness has testified that Jaswant Singh did asked him to go with Teerath Singh in a car. The witness further corroborates that Teerath Singh met some people at I.T.O. Bridge and one idol kept in a blanket was taken from the taxi. Since, this witness has not supported the prosecution on all the points, as such, this witness was got declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined. 35. PW-54 O.P. Chatwal, Dy. Superintendent of C.B.I. and arresting officer, who arrested accused Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh, has testified that after the arrest of the accused persons on 01.04.1975, at the instance of accused Man Singh, idol (material Ext. 3) was recovered from house No. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi. This witness has proved recovery memo (Ext. A-81). 36. PW-39 Paramjeet Singh is the landlord of house No. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi, from where the stolen idol was recovered on 01.04.1975. This witness has stated on oath that a room in his house was taken on rent for three SARDARS by one Tirlochan Singh. PW-50 Puran Chand is servant of Paramjeet Singh (PW-39), the landlord of said house from where the stolen idol was recovered. This witness states on oath that he was living in room No. 2, as a servant of Paramjeet Singh, PW-50 Puran Chand further states that on or about 27th or 28th of February, 1975, at about 11.00 a.m., Paramjeet Singh asked him to vacate the room as room was let out to three Sardars. This witness correctly identified accused Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh in the court that they were the persons for whom the room was vacated by him as it was let out to them on the request of Tirlochan Singh. PW-50 Puran Chand identified the lock (material Ext. 6), which was put on behalf of three accused in said room. The witness further stated that wooden crate (material Ext. 8) was kept by the Sardars in said room. 37. As to the test identification parade of accused Jaswant Sigh, Teerath Singh and man Singh, PW-17 Mr. PW-50 Puran Chand identified the lock (material Ext. 6), which was put on behalf of three accused in said room. The witness further stated that wooden crate (material Ext. 8) was kept by the Sardars in said room. 37. As to the test identification parade of accused Jaswant Sigh, Teerath Singh and man Singh, PW-17 Mr. P.K. Dham, the then Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, has stated on oath that when the accused Singh, Teerath Singh and man Singh were asked to participate in the test identification parade (as they were on bail) they refused to participate in the identification proceedings. The witness has proved Ext. A-36 to A-42, moved in this regard, by the accused persons. 38. PW-10 Luxman Dass Virmani, Proprietor of Prince Hotel, Dehradun has proved the entry in the register of the Hotel produced before the court showing that on 07.11.1974, accused Jaswant Singh along wtih two others stayed in said Hotel. PW-47 Bhagwati Prasad, a waiter of the Prince Hotel, Dehradun has corroborated the fact that accused Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh stayed in the Hotel in February 1975. This witness identified accused Jaswant Singh and Teerath Singh correctly in the court. PW-47 Bhagwati Prasad further stated that accused Surta Nand Nautiyal along with his associates met the three Sardars in the Hotel. 39. It ois pertinent to mention here that it has come in evidence on record that accused/appellant Jaswant Singh runs an Antique shop in Delhi. The same has also been corroborated by the evidence adduced by PW-52 Mohd. Ali, on record that the three accused/appellants Jaswant Singh, Man Singh and Teerath Singh, all separately own and run business of idols. Also, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in reply to question No. 47, accused/appellant Jaswant Singh himself admitted that he runs a shop in Delhi and he is dealing in the business of idols. 40. On behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh it is argued that neither it has been shown that Jaswant Singh actually received the idol, nor has it been shown that he actually met either Surta Nand Nautiyal or Raj Kumar or Bali Ram, regarding deal of idol, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. 40. On behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh it is argued that neither it has been shown that Jaswant Singh actually received the idol, nor has it been shown that he actually met either Surta Nand Nautiyal or Raj Kumar or Bali Ram, regarding deal of idol, as such, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. No doubt, payment to Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal are shown to have been made by Teerath Singh, but from the prosecution evidence if read together Teerath Singh was not acting for him alone. It has come on record that when Teerath Singh and Man Singh were sent to receive the idol, accused/appellant Jaswant Singh sent his servant Mohd. ali (PW-52) to accompany them. Had he been innocent he would not have done so. Learned counsel for C.B.I. argued that, infact, it was Jaswant Singh who was mastermind behind the deal and every time he tried to conceal his identity. I see force in the submission of learned counsel for C.b.I. that since the idol was of a very high value in the international market, the three decided to join their hands. 41. Mr. O.P. Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant Jaswant Singh contended that recovery of the idol has been made at the instance of Man Singh, as such, appellant Jaswant Singh has falsely been implicated. I do not see force in the contention. As to the fact where the idol was concealed in house No. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi, it has come in the evidence of PW-50 Puran Chand, that the room was let out to three Sardars namely, Jaswant Singh, Teerath Singh and Man Singh on the request of one Tirlochan Singh. Apart from this, it has come on record that before the idol was concealed in said house in Meenakshi Garden, owned by Paramjeet Singh, the araticle (idol) was kept in the house of Jaswant Singh. Since, the idol was recovered from the room let out to the three persons, which included Jaswant Singh, it cannot be said that it was not received from the possession of Jaswant Singh. 42. On behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh it is further submitted that between 01.04.1975 to 07.04.1975, when he was kept in police custody, he was shown to the witnesses, as such, for refusing to participate in the test identification parade, his involvement in the crime cannot be presumed. 42. On behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh it is further submitted that between 01.04.1975 to 07.04.1975, when he was kept in police custody, he was shown to the witnesses, as such, for refusing to participate in the test identification parade, his involvement in the crime cannot be presumed. I have already mentioned earlier that in Daya Singh Vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the Apex court has held that where the accused on his own volition refuses to submit for test identification parade, the prosecution cannot be blamed for not holding it. There was no bar for accused/appellant to place his objection on record, at the time the test identification parade was held, that he was shown to the witnesses, but he did not dare to face the test identification parade, and the natural interference can be drawn against him. Apart from this, as discussed above, the important witnesses, including Puran Chand (PW-50), have identified Jaswant Singh in the court. 43. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant Jaswant Singh that PW-31 Mohd. Yaseen, waiter of Majestic Bar, Dehradun, has pointed put in the court only at Man Singh and Teerath Singh, that they had drinks with two Garhwali persons, and Jaswant Singh has not been named by him. Close scrutiny of evidence of said witness clearly shows that he has been produced by; the prosecution to depose before the court what had happened inside the Majestic Bar. Merely for the reason that, in the Majestic Bar, Jaswant Singh was not present it cannot be said that he was not involved in the crime. It has come on the record, from th evidence adduced by PW-10 Luxman Das Virmani, Proprietor of Prince Hotel, Dehradun read with statement of PW-47 Bhagwati Prasad, waiter of said Hotel, that it was Jaswant Sigh, who booked the rooms in Prince Hotel and was present there, where accused Raj Kumar and Surta Nand Nautiyal came to him to negotiate the deal. 44. Drawing attention of the Court to the principle of law laid down in Bhimappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 1469,it is argued on behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh that the recovery of an article from an accused in absence of dfisclosure statmeent is of no meaning. 44. Drawing attention of the Court to the principle of law laid down in Bhimappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 1469,it is argued on behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh that the recovery of an article from an accused in absence of dfisclosure statmeent is of no meaning. After going through said case law, this Court finds that the case law referred is not helpful to the appellant Jaswant Singh for the reason that the disclosure statements are on record produced by the C.B.I., not only in respect of place where in the filed of Chandan Singh the idol was concealed but also in respect of the room from where the idol, finally recovered. 45. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of appellant Jaswant Singh that offences punishable under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C. are not made out against said accused. After going through the entire evidence on ecord, I found that, though, there is no role of Jaswant Singh in concealing the idol in the field of Chandan Singh, but concealing the idol in his own house at Delhi, and thereafter, in the house No. WZ-84, Meenakshi Garden, New Delhi, as has been proved on record, cannot be ignored. As such, after the idol is recovered in the house let out to Jaswant Singh and his associates Teerath Singh and Man Singh, not only the charge of dishonestly receiving stolen property obtained in the dacoity is proved against him but also that of concealing said property, which he knew to have been a stolen property. 46. In the above circumstances and for the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that trial court has rightly found accused/appellant Jaswant Singh guilty of offences punishable under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C. 47. This Court has carefully scrutinized the statements of defence witnesses also, and it is of the view that the evidence adduced by the dfence witnesses is not sufficient, to shake the truthfulness of the prosection story. CONCLUSION 48. For the reasons as discusseed above, Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2001 (old No. 2409 of 1985) of Jaswant Singh is liable to be dismised, and is hereby dismissed. his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court in respect of the charge of offefnces under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C. is maintained. CONCLUSION 48. For the reasons as discusseed above, Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2001 (old No. 2409 of 1985) of Jaswant Singh is liable to be dismised, and is hereby dismissed. his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court in respect of the charge of offefnces under Section 412 and 414 of I.P.C. is maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2001 (old No. 2502 of 1985) of Kabul Singh @ Khan @ Pahalwan is dismised to the extent of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. The same is maintained as recorded by the trial court. However, this Appeal of Kabul Singh is, partly allowed and, conviction and sentence recorded against accused/appellant Kabul Singh in respect of the charge of offence punishable under Section 412 of I.P.C., passed by the trial court, is set aside. He stands acquitted only of said charge. Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2002 (old No. 2414 of 1985) of Raj Kumar is dismissed to the extent of his conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court, in respect of the charge of offence punishable under Section 395 and 414 of I.P.C. The same, as recorded by the trial court is maintained. However, his Appeal is, partly allowed, in respect of the charge of offence punishable under Section 42 of I.P.C., and conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court to the extent of said offence is, set aside. He stands acquitted only of said charge. 49. Appellants Jaswant Singh, Kabul Singh and Raj Kumar are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The three shall be taken into custody forthwith by the court concerned, to make them serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court, as affirmed above. (Appeals of appellants Teerath Singh, Man Singh and that of Surta Nand Nautiyal, due to their death during the pendency of appeal, stand dated).