JUDGMENT (1) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-12-2003 and 20-12-2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 2000, convicting the appellants under Sections 396/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 396 IPC; and 10 years R.I. under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. (2) THE prosecution case in short is that Pradeep Prasad Sahu (informant-P. W-2) gave fardbeyan at 3 a.m. on 7-6-1997 that in the last night, when he and his family members were sleeping in the house, at about 11.30- 12.00 on the crying of his father (Radhika Sahu-deceased), he opened the door. In the meantime, 10-12 dacoits entered into the house and started to assault him and his father. On "hulla", his elder brother (Raj Kumar Sahu-deceased) also came out and 3-4 dacoits took him outside the house and assaulted him. due to which he fell down unconscious. THEy demanded money and jewellery. Out of fear, the informant gave the keys of Almirah. THE dacoits took away ornaments, utensils, clothes and Rs.35,000/- cash. THEy also assaulted other members of the family. After departure, two dacoits came back and committed murder of his brother-Raj Kumar Sahu and then committed murder of his father Radhika Sahu by tangi. All the dacoits then ran away with looted articles. THEy were in 30-35 in number. All were looking like Adiwashi and were speaking local and Hindi language. One of the dacoits was aged about 13-14 years. THE dacoits had covered their face by cloth. THEy were armed with tangi, lathi and sword. Out of the dacoits, the appellants were identified in the light of the lantern. While running away, the appellants told that they had already killed two persons and one person escaped. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police instituted a case under Sections 396/397 IPC. By order dated 10-6-1997, offence under Section 412 IPC was added. Initially the case was instituted against these appellants. After investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against the appellant-Tepa Munda and two others and against appellant-Ghashiya Munda and others showing them absconder. Supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Ghashiya Munda being charge sheet No. 19/98 dated 15-10-1998 under Section 396/397/412 IPC. Cognizance was taken against 23 accused persons. 20 accused persons including the appellants faced the trial. After investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against the appellant-Tepa Munda and two others and against appellant-Ghashiya Munda and others showing them absconder. Supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Ghashiya Munda being charge sheet No. 19/98 dated 15-10-1998 under Section 396/397/412 IPC. Cognizance was taken against 23 accused persons. 20 accused persons including the appellants faced the trial. The case of remaining absconding accused was separated. The accused persons denied the charges and were put on trial. The appellants were convicted as aforesaid and 18 accused persons were acquitted. (3) LEARNED counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the I.O. and the Magistrate who conducted T.I. Parade, have not been examined in this case. He further submitted that some of the witnesses said that they learnt the names of the appellants from the informant and that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. (4) ON the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned order. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. P.W.-1-Berjo Hazam is the witness to the inquest report of Radhika Sahu. P.Ws. 7 and 8-Deepak Kumar Sahu and Rajesh Kumar Sahu are not the eye- witnesses. However, they supported the incident. P.W-6-Shobha Devi was a guest in the house of the informant. She also supported the incident. She inter alia said that she hid herself in the kitchen. The dacoits had farsa and torch. She was also assaulted. She said that the dacoits killed Raj Kumar Sahu and Radhika Sahu. P.W-9-Dr. Bijay Kumar Prasad is the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the two deceased. He found five sharp cut injuries on the vital parts of the body of Radhika Sahu caused by sharp cutting weapon like tangi/ farsa on vital parts of the body such as neck, abdomen and head, including two injuries on the upper arms. The doctor also found 7 sharp cut injuries on the body of Raj Kumar Sahu caused by heavy sharp cut weapon such as tangi/farsa on vital parts of the body, such as neck, chest and head including one injury on the shoulder and one on the palm. He has also supported the prosecution case. (5) P.W-2-Pradeep Kumar Sahu-informant, is an injured eye-witness. He has also supported the prosecution case. (5) P.W-2-Pradeep Kumar Sahu-informant, is an injured eye-witness. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in paragraph 5, this witness said that dacoits went away with looted articles and after 5-7 minutes, two of them came back and killed Raj Kumar Sahu, who was lying unconscious, by tangi causing his death and then entered into the house and killed his father-Radhika Sahu by causing tangi and then they returned and in paragraph 7, it is said that he identified the appellants amongst the dacoits at the place of occurrence who took the keys. He therefore submitted that it is not said that these appellants returned and killed the two deceased. He further submitted that in paragraph 18, this witness said that he did not identify anybody in the test identification parade, though he said that he knew the appellants from before. He also submitted that in paragraph 29, this witness said that there was altercation between the deceased-Raj Kumar Sahu and the appellant-Tepa Munda about 15-20 days back. He further pointed out to paragraph 31 in which a suggestion was given to this witness that the appellant-Tepa Munda has been falsely implicated in this case as he was claiming damages for breaking his roof by the truck of this witness. (6) SUCH submissions are not acceptable. The evidence of this P.W. read with other eyewitnesses P.Ws. 3,4, 5 and 10 clearly proves that it were the appellants who returned and killed the two deceased. They said that apart from looting the house, the appellants returned back and committed murder of two deceased. The prosecution has fully proved it's case against the appellants. As the appellants were known to the informant, they were not put on T.I. Parade. The other accused persons were put on T.I. Parade, for whom P.W-2 said that he did not identify any of them and therefore the other accused persons were acquitted. The appellants have not brought anything on record in support of the suggestion made on their behalf to this witness about false implication of appellant- Tepa Munda. We have perused the case diary, the T.I. chart etc. Non-examination of I.O. has not prejudiced the defence in this case. 8A. P.W-3-Bharti Devi is the wife of the informant. She fully supported the prosecution case on all material particulars. We have perused the case diary, the T.I. chart etc. Non-examination of I.O. has not prejudiced the defence in this case. 8A. P.W-3-Bharti Devi is the wife of the informant. She fully supported the prosecution case on all material particulars. She clearly said in paragraph 7 that two dacoits returned and killed two deceased. In paragraph 8, she said that out of the dacoits, she identified the appellants who killed the two deceased and who were also involved in loot. She identified the appellants in Court. P.W-4-Jashoda Devi (mother of the informant) is the next eye-witness. She also supported the prosecution case fully. In paragraph 9, she clearly said that the appellants returned and killed the two deceased. She identified the appellants in Court. (7) P.W-5-Rina Devi is the widow of one of the deceased-Raj Kumar Sahu. This witness also supported the prosecution case on all material particulars. In paragraph 6, she clearly said that two dacoits returned and killed the two deceased by causing injury by tangi. In paragraph 7, she said that she knew the appellants but she learnt their names from her Bhaisur-informant. This witness also identified the appellants in Court. (8) P.W-10-Hemanti Devi is the second wife of the informant. She is also an eyewitness. This witness also supported the prosecution case fully. In paragraph 5, she clearly said that the appellants killed the two deceased. In paragraph 10, she said that she learnt the names of the appellants from her husband-informant. From the materials brought on the record, as noticed above, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts that they committed dacoity in the house of the informant and killed his father and brother with clear intention to kill them. The appellants could not make out any case of their false implication. (9) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, reported in 2000 (1) Cri LJ 197-K. M. Ibrahim alias Bava and others v. State of Karnataka on the question of sentence and submitted that as the appellants have remained in jail for more than 14 years, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. (10) IN our opinion, the said case is of no help to the appellants. (10) IN our opinion, the said case is of no help to the appellants. That case was based on circumstantial evidence and other facts and circumstances were also quite different from the present case, whereas in the present case, there are several injured eye-witnesses who have clearly proved the prosecution case against the appellants by direct evidence, beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-12-2003 and 20-12-2003 respectively, passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner -II Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 2000, is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.