Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment dated 9.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in Sessions case No. 40 dated 22.5.1999, convicting the sole accused-appellant under Sections 459 and 460 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500/- with a further direction to undergo RI for one month in case of default of payment of fine on the first count, and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- with a further direction to undergo RI for a period of one month in case of default of payment of fine on the second count. 2. As per the prosecution case, a ruqa (Ex. PH) was recorded on the statement of Jagbir Singh (PW-7) by an ASI, Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, on 22.12.1997. Pursuant thereto, an FIR (Exh. PH-1) was registered on the same day at 7.50 a.m. under Sections 458 and 380 IPC. The complainant stated that he is a resident of D-48, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, and was working in Punjab National Bank, R.K. Puram, Delhi. A day prior to that was holiday, and he was present in his house. After finishing his daily routine at 10 p.m., he along with his other family members namely father Raghunath, mother Kiran Devi, wife Shashi Bala, and nephew (sisters son) Vikas, went to sleep after closing the door of the house. At about 3.45 a.m., three persons, out of whom one had a good height and the other two who had short stature, entered into his room with iron pipes in their hands. They hit him therewith continuously for a number of times on his head. He fell down and became unconscious. After he had fell down they had also beaten his mother, father, wife and nephew with iron pipes. They had then opened the almirah, iron box and other cases, and had ransacked the entire house while taking away the household articles. However, he could not tell the details of all the items they had taken away. He only stated that they had taken the ornaments of his wife and Rs. 2,000/- in cash. The details of jewellery were to be given by his wife Shashi Bala. The assailants had entered into his house from its roof and had come down through the staircase. He only stated that they had taken the ornaments of his wife and Rs. 2,000/- in cash. The details of jewellery were to be given by his wife Shashi Bala. The assailants had entered into his house from its roof and had come down through the staircase. They had returned after the occurrence through the same route. After they had gone away, he became conscious and came out. First of all, he informed one Rajinder, his neighbourer, about the incident, and his brother. Shortly thereafter, Naresh Kumar Yadav, another resident of the colony, brought his vehicle and got him admitted in a hospital. With the aforesaid contents, the FIR was registered by the Palam Vihar police on 22.12.1997. As per the police proceedings, on that day i.e. 22.12.1997, on receipt of a telephonic message in connection with the incident of theft and beating from the House No. D-48, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, ASI Hem Chand (PW-8), being accompanied by Head Constables Ajit Singh and Rohtas Singh, and Constable Yahiya Khan, reached the spot. After a vehicle was arranged, the injured were carried and admitted in a hospital, and thereafter leaving Yahiya Khan, on the spot, he along with Constable Rohtas Singh went to Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, where the ruqa and MLR were received. Head Constable Ajit Singh was deputed to arrange a Dog Squad of Crime Team and a Photographer. He was also directed to look after and keep watch over the spot. The ASI went to Government Hospital, Gurgaon, where he obtained the opinion of Doctor about the injured. The doctor declared that all the injured were fit to make the statements but injured Shashi Bala was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly the statement of Jagbir Singh, was recorded. Thereafter, MLR (No. SN/220/97) of deceased Shashi Bala was obtained. The Doctor mentioned four injuries said to have been caused by blunt weapons. The doctor advised x-ray and kept them under observation. Vide MLR No. 221/1997 of Vikas, the doctor noticed two injuries by blunt weapon and advised x-ray and K.U.O. Similarly, vide MLR No. SN/222/97 of complainant Jagbir Singh, the doctor noticed 7 injuries. They were also caused with blunt weapon and injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were advised x-ray. All the injuries were kept under observation. Vide MLR No. 221/1997 of Vikas, the doctor noticed two injuries by blunt weapon and advised x-ray and K.U.O. Similarly, vide MLR No. SN/222/97 of complainant Jagbir Singh, the doctor noticed 7 injuries. They were also caused with blunt weapon and injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were advised x-ray. All the injuries were kept under observation. Vide MLR No. 223/97 of Kiran Devi, mother of the complainant, the Doctor had noted five injuries, all with blunt weapon, and injury No. 1, 4, 5 were advised x- ray. Father, vide MLR No. SN/224/97 of Raghunath, the doctor had noted five injuries, all with blunt weapon and injury No. (sic) was sent for medical opinion and injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were advised x-ray and were kept under observation. All the injuries had been inflicted on heads. From the statement, initially a case punishable only under Sections 458/380 IPC was made out. Accordingly, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rohtas for registration of a case. (sic), the FIR was registered. One of the injured, Shashi Bala, who was referred to Safdarjung Hospital died soon after her admission in the hospital during treatment. The inquest of the dead body is dated 23.12.1997, and the date, and hour of discovery noted therein is 22.12.1997 at 12.45 p.m. The post-mortem (Ex. PE 11) of the dead-body was conducted by Dr. Alexander, Specialist, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (PW-2), on 23.12.1997. She was identified by Prithvi Singh and Ajit Singh and was brought for post-mortem examination by ASI Srinivas, PS Sarojini Nagar. She was declared dead at 12.45 p.m. on 22.12.1997. He noted the following injuries :- "1. Contusion over the right mastoid region. Size 3 cm x 2 cm. 2. Bruise on the lateral aspect of right arm 12 cm x 8 cm. 3. Multiple grazed abrasion on the back of lumbar region within an area of 20 cms x 10 cms. 4. Lacerated wound on the lateral aspect of left forehead extending to the left eye-brow. Size 6 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm. 5. Swelling on the left side of head." 3. As per opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to cranio cerebral injuries by use of a blunt and heavy object/weapon with impact. Injury Nos. 4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Size 6 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm. 5. Swelling on the left side of head." 3. As per opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to cranio cerebral injuries by use of a blunt and heavy object/weapon with impact. Injury Nos. 4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He noted that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and had been caused within 22 hours of the death. He also proved the post-mortem examination report. 4. After investigations of the case, the police put up a challan against the accused and he was tried upon charges under Sections 459 and 460 IPC. As the prosecution could bring home the charges, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no recovery of any incriminating article from the accused-appellant. The date of occurrence is recorded as 22.12.1997 whereas the accused-appellant was arrested with a delay on 1.5.1998. He also submitted that the FIR did not contain the name of the accused. This is also a submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since the accused had lodged an FIR against some co-villagers, and the police could not succeed in pressurising him to compromise, he has been falsely implicated in this case in a different district. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel justified the impugned judgment while contending that the witnesses have deposed against the accused, and besides, from the co-accused namely Jailor and Teja Singh, some incriminating articles like four sarees were recovered. Learned counsel also submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses are fully consistent with the involvement of the accused appellant in this case. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses whereas the defence has cited two. 10. Doctor S.P. Singh, District Health Officer (PW-1) had x-rayed Kiran Devi, Jagbir Singh, Vikas and Raghunath. He had noticed the injury Nos. 4 and 5 of Kiran Devi to be the fractures of right hand 4th and 5th metacarpals. The rest of the injuries were simple. He had also noticed x-ray of injury No. 5 on the right forearm of complainant Jagbir Singh. He had noticed the injury Nos. 4 and 5 of Kiran Devi to be the fractures of right hand 4th and 5th metacarpals. The rest of the injuries were simple. He had also noticed x-ray of injury No. 5 on the right forearm of complainant Jagbir Singh. Both the shafts of the right forearm were fractured. X-ray of left forearm relating to injury No. 6 was also taken and it was noted to be the fracture of ulna shaft. The rest of the injuries were found to be simple. As regards the x-ray of witness Vikas, he had taken the x-ray of injury No. 2 located on the left arm, and had noticed the fracture of shaft humours. However, he found injury No. 1 to be simple. Regarding the x-ray examination of witness Raghunath, he had noticed fracture on the upper end of ulna of right forearm, relating to injury No. 4. He has also noted a communited fracture of both the bones of left forearm relating to injury No. 5. As noted above, Dr. Alexander (PW-2) had conducted the post- mortem of dead body of deceased Shashi Bala. Dr. Gulvinder Singh (PW-3) was the Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Madhuban. On 22.12.1997, the date of incident, he had visited the spot with a Crime Team. He had noticed that the house had high walls constructed around it on all the four sides. The entry doors of the house were not found tampered. They were found bolted from inside. He had also noticed blood-stains in verandah and two rooms of the house. Thus, he had drawn an inference that some violent incident had taken place. He had noted that the culprits could enter the house only through staircase which was without a door. He had prepared the report and sent it to Director, FSL, Madhuban. He had advised the Investigating Officer to lift blood-stains from the aforesaid points and to send the same for analysis. In his cross-examinations he has stated that he could notice none present inside the house when he had visited it at 8.00 a.m. in the morning except the Investigating Officer with some police personnel. 11. SI Chander Gupta (PW-4) had reached the spot on 22.12.1997 on receipt of a message about the commission of dacoity. The Investigating Officer, ASI Hem Chander, was there. 11. SI Chander Gupta (PW-4) had reached the spot on 22.12.1997 on receipt of a message about the commission of dacoity. The Investigating Officer, ASI Hem Chander, was there. He examined the house for detecting possible finger prints, which could not be noticed because the house was under construction. Manoj Kumar (PW-5) on 11.6.1998 was posted in SP Office, Gurgaon. He had prepared a site plan to scale. The site plan had been prepared at the instance of complainant Jagbir. Its photocopy was Ex. P.M., which he proved in the Court. ASI Kalinder Singh (PW-6) was posted as Moharrir Head Constable on 2.6.1998 at P.S. Rai, Sonepat. The property which the SI Mahabir Singh had taken into possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C., was deposited with him. He tendered his affidavit (Ex. PG) in evidence. 12. Jagbir Singh (PW-7) is the complainant. He has reiterated the statement made in ruqa. He identified the accused in the court. He also identified four sarees and eight artificial bangles recovered by Rai police from co-accused Jailor and Teja Singh. These two persons had been arrested by Rai police in June 1998. He has supported the prosecution case that the aforesaid two accused persons had disclosed the commission of offence in the presence of the people of his locality at the Police Post Palam Vihar. At the end of his cross-examinations, he has reiterated that "it is incorrect to say that accused present in the court was not one of the assailants." 13. Hem Chand (PW-8) was posted as ASI at Police Post, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, on the date of incident. On receipt of a telephonic message from PS Sadar, Gurgaon, that a dacoity had been committed in the house of the complainant, he went to the spot with a police team and found five persons in injured condition. He arranged for 2-3 vehicles and sent them to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. He left Constable Yahiya Khan to keep watch over the spot. After sending the injured to Hospital where he recorded the statement of complainant Jagbir (PW-7) he sent the statement to the Police Station for recording an FIR. A photocopy thereof being Ex. PH was proved by him. He has also narrated that on the basis of the said statement, the FIR was recorded by ASI Hanuman Singh. He has proved the photocopy of the original FIR Ex. PH-1. A photocopy thereof being Ex. PH was proved by him. He has also narrated that on the basis of the said statement, the FIR was recorded by ASI Hanuman Singh. He has proved the photocopy of the original FIR Ex. PH-1. Thereafter, he also recorded the statements of the injured persons and arranged for a Dog Squad. He inspected the spot and got it photographed. 14. Inspector/SHO Ram Phal also reached the place. He spent whole night at the spot to trace out the clues. In the morning, he went to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, for recording the statement of Shashi Bala but he came to know that she had passed away. Thereafter, he sent for adding an offence of Section 460 IPC in the FIR. He also proved the site plan, a photocopy whereof was exhibited as Ex. PM. He recovered a 4-1/2 long iron rod. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he had received the information about the occurrence from PS Sadar at about 5 a.m. and has reached the spot between 5.20 and 5.30 a.m. 15. Raghunath (PW-9) is the father of the complainant. He has supported the prosecution case. He also identified the accused as is obvious from the cross-examination. The relevant portion of his statement as regards the identification of the accused in the Court is as under :- "I had seen the accused present in the court before he entered my house somewhere. I had seen him about 8 to 10 days before the occurrence on the road. He had been working there. I cannot tell with whom he was working at that time. I was not told about the accused working with some contractor. It is my guess work. I may have seen the accused once or twice before the occurrence on the road. About 8 to 10 days before the occurrence, the accused with one another person came to me and asked me as to when he was to get tiles fixed on the roof of my house. I told him that I would get the same done whenever I would have the money. This happened in the morning. At that time I was sitting outside the house. My wife was also sitting beside me at that time. I had told the police all about these things while it recorded my statement. Confronted with Ex. I told him that I would get the same done whenever I would have the money. This happened in the morning. At that time I was sitting outside the house. My wife was also sitting beside me at that time. I had told the police all about these things while it recorded my statement. Confronted with Ex. DA where it is not so recorded. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused never came into my way at any time before the occurrence and that he was picked up by the police from Jhajjar. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused present in the Court did not enter my house." 16. Thus, it is obvious from his statement that the accused was correctly identified by him in the Court. He was not a stranger to him as the accused had earlier visited his place with another labourer. It has also come in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, the light of his room was on because his room had no door at that time. 17. Vikas Kumar, another injured witness, has deposed as PW-10. He has also corroborated the prosecution case in material particulars. He has stated that the lights of both the rooms of the house were on. He identified the accused in the Court. His statement as such is as under :- "After seeing the accused during the occurrence, I have seen him only today in the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not see the accused at the time of occurrence. It is incorrect to suggest that it was dark at the time of occurrence. It is incorrect to suggest that seeing the accused in custody outside the court, I had pointed to him as one of the assailants. Police did not visit the spot in my presence." 18. Ramesh Kumar, SI, has been cited as PW-12. On 22.5.1998 he was posted at PS Sadar Gurgaon. The accused appellant was in custody in some other case when he was arrested in connection with this case. This witness had interrogated the accused who disclosed his involvement in the occurrence. Inspector Ram Phal (PW-12) was the Inspector SHO of PS Sadar Gurgaon on 25.7.1998. He had prepared the challan after completion of investigation. Ranjit Singh (PW-13) had accompanied complainant Jagbir Singh to PS Rai. This witness had interrogated the accused who disclosed his involvement in the occurrence. Inspector Ram Phal (PW-12) was the Inspector SHO of PS Sadar Gurgaon on 25.7.1998. He had prepared the challan after completion of investigation. Ranjit Singh (PW-13) had accompanied complainant Jagbir Singh to PS Rai. In his presence, the complainant had identified four sarees out of 5 to 7 belonging to him. ASI Raj Singh had taken possession of four sarees vide recovery memo Ex. PF. Raj Singh (PW-14) is a retired SI. On 9.7.1998 he was posted as the Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. On that day, he had investigated the case. He had gone to PS Rai with the complainant. The articles recovered by Rai police under Section 102 Cr.P.C. were produced and in his presence, the complainant identified four sarees. He took into possession the said sarees vide recovery memo Ex. PM. He also recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested co- accused Teja @ Gogi from Bahadurgarh Courts in connection with this case and interrogated him. Besides, another person known as Jailor was also arrested by him. Their disclosure statements were recorded as Ex. PK and Ex. PJ and they also got recovered all the incriminating articles from Nazafgarh area. Before effecting recovery as such, the accused had been put to a test identification parade, conducted by Tehsildar Gurgaon. However, they were not made accused in this case for the purpose of trial. 19. Gulshan Rai (PW-15) was posted as Inspector SHO PS Gurgaon on 21.3.1999. He prepared a supplementary challan against the accused appellant under his signatures. Mahabir Singh (PW-16) was posted as SHO Rai on 1.5.1998. He arrested accused appellant Hardwari and interrogated him. In interrogation, he made a disclosure statement about the commission of crime in Gurgaon area. Thereafter, he gave information to Gurgaon police. However, he arrested the accused for offences punishable under Section 458/460 and 380 IPC in a different case registered at Rai. ASI Srinivas (PW-17) was posted at Safdarjung Hospital. He prepared the inquest report of the deceased and proved it vide Ex. PQ. 20. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in answer to question No. 16 stated as under :- "I am innocent. I got lodged the FIR against some villagers of my Village Fatehpur at PS Jhajjar under FIR No. 137 dated 13.3.1998 under Sections 148/149/323/427/436 IPC. PQ. 20. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in answer to question No. 16 stated as under :- "I am innocent. I got lodged the FIR against some villagers of my Village Fatehpur at PS Jhajjar under FIR No. 137 dated 13.3.1998 under Sections 148/149/323/427/436 IPC. The police pressurised me to compromise the matter and I refused to compromise and because of this police got me involved in the above mentioned case. The police forcibly picked up from my house on 24.4.1998 and involved me in that case." 21. He took a plea that he was innocent and as he had lodged an FIR against some co-villagers of Fatehpur, PS Jhajjar, and thereafter, did not accede to the police pressure from compromise, he has been falsely involved in this case. HC Chander Bhan (DW-1) appeared on behalf of the defence. He brought the summoned record Ex. DB (FIR No. 137 dated 13.3.1998) in the Court so as to show that the accused had lodged an FIR against the co-villagers. 22. Ram Piari (DW-2) is a co-villager. According to her, accused Hardwari is a native of her village. About three years back at about 10 or 11 in the day time, the police had come to her village Fatehpur. They had taken the accused along. Hence, she had gone to PS Jhajjar, and had lodged protests for illegal detention of the accused. She was a Sarpanch of the Village at that time. According to her, Hardwari was an agriculturist, and his house was situated at a distance of half a killa away from her house. 23. Though the learned counsel also submitted that he does not want to assail the order of conviction but we have carefully examined the evidence as above. It appears from the aforesaid discussion, that the accused was put up on trial by way of a supplementary challan after his arrest by the Rai police in connection with some other but similar offence. During interrogations he had admitted to have also committed such an offence in Gurgaon area. He was identified by the prosecution witnesses, as aforesaid, in Court, and it has not come in their cross-examinations that the police had earlier shown the accused to them. The identification of the accused in the Court being in conformity with the law carries substantial weight and lends credibility to the prosecution case. He was identified by the prosecution witnesses, as aforesaid, in Court, and it has not come in their cross-examinations that the police had earlier shown the accused to them. The identification of the accused in the Court being in conformity with the law carries substantial weight and lends credibility to the prosecution case. There is a consistent occular evidence of the injured witnesses that since the house was under construction, the electric bulbs of the house were on at the time of occurrence. Though there was no recovery of any incriminating articles from the accused, but his identification by the prosecution witnesses has proved his guilt to the hilt. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Sections 459 and 460 IPC is hereby affirmed. However, from the discussion on the sentence, it appears that the Court has noticed that is the first offence of the accused and he is not a previous convict. Further, we were informed during the course of hearing that the accused has five children to be looked after and his wife has undergone mental depression during his stay in jail. Hence, we deem it expedient in the interest of Justice to reduce the sentence from imprisonment for life under Section 460 IPC to 10 years RI. The rest of the sentences including fines under Sections 459 and 460 IPC shall remain intact. With the aforesaid modification on the quantum of sentence, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.