Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Through this order, four appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 452 SB of 2007 (Krishan v. State of Haryana), 500 SB of 2007 (Davender v. State of Haryana), 886 SB of 2007 (Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana) and 968 SB of 2007 (Sombir v. State of Haryana) are being disposed of as they arise out of a common judgment, leading to conviction of four different appellants. 2. The appellant in each case is accused of offences under Sections 395, 397, 506 IPC. In addition, appellant Surender @ Baba is also accused of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They all stand convicted for the respective offences alleged against them and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each case. They have filed the above noted separate appeals before this Court. It may also need a notice that except for appellant, Sunil, rest of the appellants have been ordered to be released on bail. These appeals, though of the year 2007, were set down for hearing, while declining the prayer for bail made by appellant, Sunil. 3. The appellants are accused of having committed a dacoity at farm house of one Satdev Tyagi on 30.6.2003, which is situated on Murthal alongwith G.T. Road. On the said date, the complainant, Satdev Tyagi, was sleeping at his Farm House. When he woke up to urinate at middle of night, he noticed the appellants, who were seen armed with deadly weapons like gun, revolver, pistol etc. The complainant enquired about their identity, when they surrounded him. On the asking of appellant, Surender @ Baba, appellant Sunil overpowered driver, Jagmal, who was sleeping on a near-by cot. Appellant Surender thereafter asked his accomplices to see as to how many persons were present at the Farm House. The complainant, on being overpowered, was asked to disclose the place where the money and gun had been kept. The complainant was taken from room to room by appellants, Surender and Davender. At that time, complainant noticed that all his servants had been detained by the appellants in a tractor garage. A key was brought by appellant Surender from the servant and then the complainant was taken inside the room where his house hold goods were lying. One microscope, a sum of Rs. At that time, complainant noticed that all his servants had been detained by the appellants in a tractor garage. A key was brought by appellant Surender from the servant and then the complainant was taken inside the room where his house hold goods were lying. One microscope, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash, one HMT watch, one electric torch, one mobile phone and its charger were found lying in the room, which were taken by the appellants. At that time, appellants Surender and Davender were present inside whereas remaining appellants were standing outside the room. The complainant was taken to a room near his cot where his shirt was lying. The appellants took out the key from the pocket of the shirt and then took the complainant to the garage where he was tied with a rope. The appellants, while fleeing, took the car of the complainant wherein .38 bore revolver alongwith 10 live cartridges were also lying alongwith the documents of the car and arms licence etc. While leaving the place, the appellants also advanced threat of life to the complainant in case he raised any alarm. It seems that all the appellants were later arrested. They are alleged to have made some disclosure statements, leading to their prosecution. They were ultimately convicted for the offences as alleged and sentenced as already noticed. The appellants, in their defence, have pleaded their false implication and refuted the allegations made against them. They, however, did not produce any evidence in support of their defence. The counsel appearing for the appellants have taken me through the evidence led by the prosecution. The counsel have mainly raised three fold submissions. It is first submitted that the case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of the complainant alone as the other eye witnesses have resiled from their respective versions and so were declared hostile. It is accordingly pleaded that it will not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the solitary account given by the complainant. The counsel would further submit that complainant has not conducted himself well while deposing as he even could not properly identify the appellants before the Court. The counsel would, thus, pray that conviction of the appellants can not be maintained. The counsel would further submit that complainant has not conducted himself well while deposing as he even could not properly identify the appellants before the Court. The counsel would, thus, pray that conviction of the appellants can not be maintained. The counsel would further urge that the alleged recovery shown from the appellants (except appellant, Davender) is doubtful in the absence of any independent witness having been joined at the time of recovery, though it was effected from the place where number of witnesses were available. To further strengthen their arguments, the counsel would also refer to the fact that recovery of currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,000/- would not be of much significance as the same can easily be fastened there being no specific identifiable mark on it to relate it to the amount robbed. They would, thus, say that these recoveries were implanted on the appellants just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the case of prosecution is well supported by the evidence given by the complainant, which is trust-worthy and reliable. According to him, version of the complainant would find support from the recovery which is effected from the appellants, included car, which they had taken at the time of committing dacoity. He accordingly pleads that conviction of the appellants has rightly been recorded and so should be maintained. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me through the evidence. No doubt, the case of prosecution is mainly supported by the evidence given by the complainant as the remaining two eye witnesses have turned hostile by not supporting the prosecution. Ofcourse, the evidence given by the complainant received support from the evidence of the police witnesses, which is sought to be completely ignored by the counsel appearing for the appellants. It would be appropriate to make reference to the version deposed by the complainant. He is the one who was present at his Farm House and stands robbed. The record shows that the appellants were present there at the Farm House for a considerable period of time and as such, there was enough time and opportunity for the complainant to recognise and note the feature for identifying the appellants. The complainant examined as PW18 has given details of the incident that happened on 30.6.2003. The record shows that the appellants were present there at the Farm House for a considerable period of time and as such, there was enough time and opportunity for the complainant to recognise and note the feature for identifying the appellants. The complainant examined as PW18 has given details of the incident that happened on 30.6.2003. As per PW18 he got up to urinate in the middle of night when he found some persons present at the Farm House armed with deadly weapons. He has then given the details as to how he and his driver were overpowered. He has then further given the details in the manner in which he was taken from room to room and how various articles were robbed. The counsel appearing for the appellants have mainly highlighted the evidence given by the complainant in regard to their identification done by the complainant to challenge the prosecution case. Counsel appearing for appellant, Sunil, initially made an attempt to show that Sunil was referred to as Sushil and as such, Sunil could not be the person who was one of the robbers accompanying the appellants. He appears to have raised this argument only on the basis of some typographic mistake. In the original record, the name has been rightly recorded as Sunil and as such, no advantage can accrue to him on this count. 6. It may require notice that evidence of identification of the appellants came during cross-examination. While giving evidence during cross-examination, the complainant was asked by the defence counsel to identify the accused. This happened when PW18 gave the evidence that he learnt from the police on 2.7.2003 that the appellants have been apprehended. Thereafter, it is recorded as under :- "(The witness on the asking of ld. Defence counsel identify each accused. The witness identify each accused correctly. Again the witness failed to identify correctly accused Devinder present in the court. The witness identify accused Sombir as Sunder. Volunteered I had been sick, bed ridden and unable to stand and see properly. My eye-sight has also weakened. (The witness is deposing while sitting on chair). The witness has also expressed his inability to identify accused Krishan present in the Court. Similar is the situation as regards to accused Sunil." 7. From this, it is vehemently urged that the complainant could not identify the appellants in a proper manner. My eye-sight has also weakened. (The witness is deposing while sitting on chair). The witness has also expressed his inability to identify accused Krishan present in the Court. Similar is the situation as regards to accused Sunil." 7. From this, it is vehemently urged that the complainant could not identify the appellants in a proper manner. It may appear so on the first blush but deeper analysis of the above portion of the evidence may give correct picture and dispel distortions. It can be seen that the identification of the appellants came on record on a question being asked by the defence counsel during the course of cross-examination. The counsel took a calculated risk to test the veracity of this witness to see if he was in a position to identify the appellants correctly or not. When asked to do so, the complainant identified each accused correctly as is recorded by the trial Court. This happened when the defence counsel asked the complainant to identify each accused. What was the occasion thereafter again to question this witness to identify the accused-appellants once over again. It is really not understood. Once the complainant had correctly identified each of the appellant and it was so recorded, where was the need to allow counsel to again question the complainant to come out with somewhat different version. It is required to be noted that the complainant did not know the appellants prior to the incident. He stated so in clear terms before the Court by saying "I never knew the accused persons prior to the date of occurrence." Thus, he can not be expected to know the names of the appellants. Even if he had given the names of some of the accused-appellants in the course of his testimony, it would be on the basis of what he learnt during the incident so as they were addressing each other before him at that time. Requiring the complainant to identify each accused by name is not really warranted or required. He has identified each of the appellants as the one who had come to rob him on 30.6.2003. Record of evidence clearly shows that the defence counsel addressed a specific question to the complainant to identify each accused present in the Court, which he successfully did. Subsequently, asking him again to identify if a particular person was Davender or Sunil etc. Record of evidence clearly shows that the defence counsel addressed a specific question to the complainant to identify each accused present in the Court, which he successfully did. Subsequently, asking him again to identify if a particular person was Davender or Sunil etc. appears to have added confusion in his mind to identify each appellant by name leading to his version as highlighted and noted above. The portion of the evidence reproduced above would clearly show that the complainant had identified the appellants as one who had come to his Farm House on the day of incident and who had committed robbery. Insisting upon the identification of the appellants by names, in this background, really was not called for or required. It is common case of both the parties that identification parade in this case was not conducted in the presence of the complainant. If the appellants were sure that they are falsely implicated, they could have asked for identification parade to be held. It is not the case of prosecution that complainant was not aware of the identification of the appellants for them to hold identification parade. It was for the appellants to seek identification parade in case they wanted to get any benefit in regard to identification. The identification of the appellants, as done by the complainant, is a sufficient assurance to hold that they indeed are the one who had committed this robbery at the Farm House of the complainant and no benefit can accrue to the appellants on this count. 8. To lend assurance to the case against the appellants, evidence of recovery can be taken into consideration. The appellants, however, have tried to say that the recovery is doubtful as it is supported by evidence given by police witnesses alone and that no independent witness was joined. The mere fact that independent witnesses were not joined would not render the recovery to be doubtful. Otherwise, nothing has been submitted before me to say or to urge that police has any reason or motive to falsely implicate the appellants. No such allegation is made against the complainant as to why he would name them wrongly and identify them before the Court to urge that they had come and robbed him. One of the items recovered is a car, which was allegedly robbed from the Farm House of the complainant. No such allegation is made against the complainant as to why he would name them wrongly and identify them before the Court to urge that they had come and robbed him. One of the items recovered is a car, which was allegedly robbed from the Farm House of the complainant. Though this car was recovered after exchange of fire between the police and some persons, who had managed to run away but the same is being attributed to the appellants. The appellants have faced separate prosecution for the allegation regarding this exchange of fire, for which they have been separately convicted and against which they have filed separate appeal. The other items allegedly robbed are microwave, which was recovered from appellant, Sunil. A pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from appellant Surender. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was recovered on the disclosure statement made by appellant Sombir. A sum of Rs. 1500/- has been recovered at the instance of Sunil and another sum of Rs. 1000/- at the instance of Krishan. One mobile phone was also recovered on the disclosure statement made by Joginder. Mere fact that these recoveries are not in the presence of independent witnesses is not in itself enough to cast doubt on the recoveries. These recoveries have been effected on the disclosure statements made by the appellants. The recoveries pursuant to such disclosures are admissible in evidence. A fact can also be taken note of that generally an individual is always reluctant to join as a witness in police enquiry or investigation, especially so when the case happens to be of the nature in hand. In their statements made by the police officials, it is disclosed that they had made efforts to join the independent witnesses at the time of recoveries but none agreed to accompany the police. The recoveries, as such, can not be doubted on this aspect alone. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence and record, I am of the view that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Nothing much has been stated against the evidence of complainant except for the lack of identification on his part to correctly identify the appellants before the Court. This aspect has already been discussed above. Nothing much has been stated against the evidence of complainant except for the lack of identification on his part to correctly identify the appellants before the Court. This aspect has already been discussed above. Otherwise, there is no allegation standing against the complainant, for which he could have come to make false allegations against the appellants. I would, thus, up-hold the conviction of the appellants. 9. Counsel for the appellants then have unanimously prayed for some leniency in the award of sentence to the appellants. Appellant Sunil has, by now, undergone sentence of about 4 years 4 months whereas the remaining appellants, though have been released on bail, have undergone about 4 years of sentence respectively. They have been sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years each. Dacoity is serious offence and can not call for any sympathy in the award of sentence. The daredevil act of the appellants may not need any concession or leniency but their young ages may constrain me to relent a bit to temper justice with some mercy. The appellants are stated to be aged varying from 19 to 21 years. 10. No harm in hoping that stint in prison of the appellants would restore them as good human-beings to society. Any long incarceration may retard their reformation and is likely to give them prolonged opportunities to pick up versatile vices and return to society as hardened delinquents. Let us make an effort to reform them by reducing their rigors a bit by reducing the sentence to 8 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC. However, sentence of fine as also sentence of 3 years coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/- as awarded to appellant Surender @ Baba under Section 25 of the Arms Act are maintained. It is seen from the record, that the appellant, except Sunil Kumar, are on bail. They are accordingly directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, to undergo the remaining portion of sentence. 11. With the above modification in the sentence, all the appeals are dismissed.