JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of Laxmi Dutt Bhatt s/o Hari Dutt Bhatt, resident of House No. 10 Panditwari, PS Garhi Cantt, district Dehradun in the instant case. He (Laxmi Dutt Bhatt) got the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) scribbled by one Tulsi Ram Bhatt on 07.07.2003 enumerating the facts therein that in the intervening night of 6/7.07.2003 at 1:00 a.m. his nephews informed him on telephone that the hooligans ransacked the house of Sushil Kumar, who was sleeping in his house which was under construction in front of house of Satish Chandra Bhatt. The dacoits killed Sushil Kumar and his wife Kulvinder Kaur around 12:15 am. When his brother Satish Chandra Bhatt and his wife Vimla Bhatt protested, the dacoits killed Satish Chandra Bhatt and his wife Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatt also. The dacoits looted a cash of Rs. 2500/- from Satish Chandra Bhatt’s house along with a chain and a quilt. 2. On the complaint of Laxmi Chandra Bhatt, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was lodged at district Kotwali Roorkee, District Hardwar on 07.07.2003 at 3:45 am. Occurrence took place on 6/7.7.2003 at 12:15 am. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 4 kilometers. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 177 of 2003 under Section 396 IPC. FIR was promptly lodged by the informant. 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 412 was submitted against the accused-appellants. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 412 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 14 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial accused appellants Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota @ Shah Alam and Parvez were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of which they were required to undergo two years’ further imprisonment. 4. After conclusion of the trial accused appellants Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota @ Shah Alam and Parvez were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of which they were required to undergo two years’ further imprisonment. Accused appellant Rafi @ Furkan was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC and was awarded seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to undergo six months’ further imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently in respect of accused appellant Rafi @ Furkan. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota @ Shah Alam and Parvez preferred present appeal. 5. PW1 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt was the unfortunate brother of deceased Satish Chandra Bhatt. Deceased Vimla Devi was his sister-in-law (bhabhi). Victim was residing in Defence Colony within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee. Sushil Kumar and his wife Kulvinder Kaur were residing in front of their house. In the intervening night of 6/7.07.2003 at 1:00 a.m. PW1 Laxmi Dutt’s nephews Anuj and Ashish informed him on telephone that the hooligans ransacked the house of Sushil around 12:15 a.m. and killed his wife. When Satish Chandra Bhatt and his wife Vimla protested, the dacoits killed Satish Chandra Bhatt and his wife Smt. Vimal Devi also. The dacoits looted a cash of Rs. 2500/- from Satish Chandra Bhatt’s house along with a chain and a quilt. PW1 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt got the complaint scribbled by one Tulsi Ram Bhatt. This witness proved his complaint Ext.Ka-1. He said that the scribe of complaint Tulsi Ram Bhatt has died. 6. PW1 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of accused/appellant but nothing has come in his cross-examination which may tend to benefit the appellants. The statement of PW1 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt is worth believing. 7. PW2 J.S. Negi said that when he was sleeping at his residence in Defence Colony, he heard the sound of fire from the house of his neighbour on 6/7.07.2003 at 12-12 ½ a.m. On hearing the sound of fire he came out of his room. He saw that 6-7 people trespassed into his house. 7. PW2 J.S. Negi said that when he was sleeping at his residence in Defence Colony, he heard the sound of fire from the house of his neighbour on 6/7.07.2003 at 12-12 ½ a.m. On hearing the sound of fire he came out of his room. He saw that 6-7 people trespassed into his house. On being enquired about their identity, one of the assailants fired upon him which hit his leg. His sons Shashi Mohan and Chandra Mohan were present at home. They saw that the hooligans surrounded PW2 J.S. Negi. His sons jumped from the wall and went to inform the people residing in the colony. They ranged up police. The same day his neighbours Sushil Kumar and Satish Chandra Bhatt were also looted. The assailants killed Sushil Kumar, his wife, Satish Chandra Bhatt and his wife Smt. Vimla. In all, four persons were killed. The dacoits looted a cash of Rs. 10,000/-, a HMT watch, etc. PW2 J.S. Negi was a regular visitor to the house of deceased Satish Chandra Bhatt. He identified his household goods as well as the household articles of Satish Chandra Bhatt before the Magistrate and proved Material Exts.1 to 12. The dacoits were put to Test Identification Parade on 02.12.2003. Dacoits/assailants were correctly identified by him, Anoop and Jagdish, both sons of Satish Chandra Bhatt. PW2 J.S. Negi also identified the accused before the court. He sustained pellet injuries on his face, chest, forehead and hands during the incident. 8. This witness too was subjected to detailed cross-examination on behalf of accused/appellants. Nothing has come in his cross-examination which may cast a shadow of doubt on his oral testimony. The fact that he sustained injuries on his body during the incident corroborates his presence on the place of occurrence. 9. PW3 Shashi Mohan was a neighbour of deceased Satish Chandra and Sushil Kumar. He was the son of PW2 J.S. Negi. When he heard the noise of barking of dogs and sound of fire, he saw that his father PW 2 J.S.Negi was injured. He also saw that a few people trespassed into his house. PW3 Shashi Mohan jumped from the wall of his house and went to PCO to inform police. He knocked the doors of his neighbours. When the neighbours brought licensed guns, sticks, etc. and fired their guns, the dacoits fled away. He also saw that a few people trespassed into his house. PW3 Shashi Mohan jumped from the wall of his house and went to PCO to inform police. He knocked the doors of his neighbours. When the neighbours brought licensed guns, sticks, etc. and fired their guns, the dacoits fled away. Later on PW3 Shashi Mohan came to know that the assailants had killed Satish Chandra Bhatt, his wife and one more couple. 10. PW4 Ashish Bhatt was the son of deceased Satish Chandra Bhatt. He too supported the prosecution story and said that dacoits entered into his house in the intervening night of 6/7.07.2003 at 12:30 a.m. and killed his parents. They also looted his house. The dacoits also looted the houses of his neighbours Jaswant Singh Negi and Jasvinder Kaur. They killed Javinder Kaur and her husband. On the fateful night, PW4 Ashish Bhatt had gone to Chandigarh. He proved a list of looted articles (Ext.Ka-2). 11. PW5 Anup Bhatt was another son of deceased Satish Chandra Bhatt. He also saw the incident. When his father went out of his room on hearing the sound of fire. His younger brother pointed towards the temple place of worship within the house and accused Furkan was prompt to take away money. After the dacoits ransacked his house they went to PW2 J.S. Negi’s house. When this witness came inside his house he saw that his parents were dead, Sushil and his wife were also killed, Jaswant Singh Negi was also injured. the assailants also fired upon his father. One of the accused hit his father on head, the others started inflicting blows of sticks on Satish Chandra Bhatt. In all five assailants committed marpeet with victim Satish Chandra Bhatt. One of the assailants pulled the door, entered into the room and hit upon the head of his mother. PW5 Anup Bhatt said that it was Rafi alias Furkan, who hit his mother. This witness also told that accused / appellant Parvez hit him in his back. He identified both of them in the court. When this witness tried to open the door, one of the accused caught hold of him and threatened him. One of the accused put revolver on his head. The witness identified accused Abid in the court. This witness also told that accused / appellant Parvez hit him in his back. He identified both of them in the court. When this witness tried to open the door, one of the accused caught hold of him and threatened him. One of the accused put revolver on his head. The witness identified accused Abid in the court. Furkan caught hold of his younger brother and enquired about the place where the money was keptThis witness identified Rafi @ Furkan, Parvez, Sonu @ Chota when the identification was conducted. Accused Abid was seen by them in a tea stall in Roorkee. He was also involved in the loot. Looted property was recovered from Muzaffarnagar. 12. Thus this witness was very important eyewitness who entered into intrinsic details of the incident in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. If there was any lacuna in the examination-in-chief, the same was duly filled up in the cross-examination of a very important eyewitness. He identified the accused persons in jail as well as in the court. His evidence is believable and the accused persons could be held guilty on the sole testimony of PW5 Anup alone. The other witnesses whose evidence has been discussed earlier supported the prosecution story but did not disclose the names of the dacoits. The other witnesses told about the incident in detail, identified accused persons in Identification Parade but PW 5 Anup is the witness who not only identified accused persons in test identification parade correctly but also identified accused persons in court with their names. 13. PW6 Dinesh Chandra Bhandari, Inspector Vigilance arrested Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota and Parvez on 10.07.2003 at 1:45 a.m. Two of their colleagues fled away. Looted property was recovered on their pointing out. PW6 Dinesh Chandra Bhandari proved Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka-2). 14. PW7 SO V.D. Uniyal arrested three accused namely, Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota and Parvez and recovered illegal arms from them. It was PW8 Jai Pal Singh, Tehsildar before whom identification of looted property was conducted. He proved report Ext.Ka-2. 15. PW9 Doctor Mange Raj Malik was the Medical Officer who examined the injuries sustained by injured PW 2 Jaswant Singh Negi on 07.07.2003 at 4:30 a.m. He proved injury report Ext.Ka-4. It was PW8 Jai Pal Singh, Tehsildar before whom identification of looted property was conducted. He proved report Ext.Ka-2. 15. PW9 Doctor Mange Raj Malik was the Medical Officer who examined the injuries sustained by injured PW 2 Jaswant Singh Negi on 07.07.2003 at 4:30 a.m. He proved injury report Ext.Ka-4. He found the following injuries on the body of injured Jaswant Singh : 1) Multiple lacerated wounds 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm over an area of 30 cm x 24 cm on front of left shoulder. 2) Multiple lacerated wounds over an area of 17 cm x 15 cm on front of right side chest upper part 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm in size x depth not probed with tattooing in an area of 40. cm x 11 cm on front of right shoulder and right forearm upper part. No blackening. 3) Multiple lacerated wound over an area of 20 cm x 25 cm on left side face, neck and nose and forehead, 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm size depth not probed, no blackening or tattooing seen. 4) Tattooing over an area of 20 cm x 15 cm on right side of lower abdomen and upper part of right thigh. 5) Multiple lacerated wound over an area of 50 cm x 40 cm on whole of lower and upper back. 6) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed. 7) Lacerated wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x depth not probed. 8) Lacerated wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x depth not probed on front of right thigh. 9) Incised wound 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep over back of middle finger of left hand. 16. PW10 Ranjeet Singh was the person who put his signatures on the inquest report. Simple soil and blood stained soil were also taken in his presence. 17. PW11 Constable Kuldeep Kumar proved chik FIR Ext.Ka-7 and copy of GD Ext.Ka-8. 18. PW12 Doctor Ardhendu De conducted post mortems on the bodies of deceased Sushil Kumar, Kulvinder Kaur w/o Sushil Kumar, Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatt w/o Satish Chandra Bhatt and Satish Chandra Bhatt. In all four post mortems on the bodies of deceased persons were conducted by the doctor who proved post mortem reports Ext.Ka-9, Ext.Ka-10, Ext.Ka-11 and Ext.Ka-12. 18. PW12 Doctor Ardhendu De conducted post mortems on the bodies of deceased Sushil Kumar, Kulvinder Kaur w/o Sushil Kumar, Smt. Vimla Devi Bhatt w/o Satish Chandra Bhatt and Satish Chandra Bhatt. In all four post mortems on the bodies of deceased persons were conducted by the doctor who proved post mortem reports Ext.Ka-9, Ext.Ka-10, Ext.Ka-11 and Ext.Ka-12. It will be a lengthy exercise to reproduce the ante mortem injuries sustained by the victims hence the same is being avoided for the sake of brevity. Doctor has however opined that the cause of death of victims was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Thus, the medical evidence has fully supported prosecution story. The evidence tendered by eyewitnesses which includes an injured PW2 J.S. Negi is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 19. PW13 Jasveer Singh Pundir, Inspector CB CID was the Investigation Officer who conducted investigation of the case, prepared site plan (Ext.Ka-13) and submitted charge sheet (Ext.Ka-16) against the accused persons. 20. PW14 Mahesh Chand was posted as Sub-Inspector in P.S. Kotwali Roorkee on 07.07.2003. He got the inquest reports (Ext. Ka-17 to Ext. Ka-20) of the deceased conducted. 21. It is a case of commission of dacoity and murder of four persons. It is evidentially proved that accused were participating in dacoity and murder during transaction of offence and therefore, each of them is liable to be punished under Section 396 IPC. Accused / appellant Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota and Parvez were therefore, rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder). Accused/appellant Rafi @ Furkan was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC (dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity). Fourth accused Abid was acquitted of the charge under Section 396 IPC by learned trial court and it is informed by learned A.G.A.that no State Appeal was preferred against acquittal of one accused because his case stood on different footing. 22. The occurrence took place in the intervening night of 6/7.07.2003 around 12–12½ a.m. and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 3:45 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 4 kms and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR. 22. The occurrence took place in the intervening night of 6/7.07.2003 around 12–12½ a.m. and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 3:45 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 4 kms and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging FIR. There may be some lapses in the investigation of the case but that itself does not take away the credit which goes to the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW2 Jaswant Singh Negi was not only an eyewitness to the crime but he also sustained injuries while resisting the move of the appellants. Not only that - PW5 Anoop Bhatt, the unfortunate son of deceased parents has given the minutest details of the incident. Nothing could come out in his testimony despite having a lengthy cross-examination of the said witness. He identified the accused persons in court by name. Medical evidence has supported prosecution story that includes injuries sustained by PW3 J.S. Negi and ante-mortem injuries sustained by four deceased. PW4 Ashish Bhatt who was away at Chandigarh when the incident took place lodged the report regarding looted property. He gave the details of property (Ext.Ka-2)which was looted from his house. PW1 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt lodged FIR (Ext.Ka-1) with P.S. concerned. PW3 Shashi Mohan s/o PW2 Jaswant Singh Negi was also an PW6 Dinesh Singh Bhandari eyewitness to the crimerecovered looted property from the possession of Rafi @ Furkan, Sonu @ Chota and Parvez. It was said that two of the co-accused succeeded in fleeing away from the scene. Accused Abid who was acquitted by learned trial court was not the one arrested with looted property. His case stood on different footing. Prosecution story stands proved against the appellants on the strength of oral testimony of all these witnesses. 23. Identification Parades are not meant primarily for the court. They are meant for investigating purposes. The object of conducting a Test Identification Parade is two fold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the Investigating Authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. 24. Learned Amicus Curiae drew the attention of this Court towards the statement in the cross-examination of PW2 J.S. Negi. Second is to satisfy the Investigating Authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. 24. Learned Amicus Curiae drew the attention of this Court towards the statement in the cross-examination of PW2 J.S. Negi. The said witness said that he could not identify the witnesses before the Magistrate (who conducted T.I.P). He however said at page no. 4 of his statement that on 02.12.2003 he along with Anup and Anuj, both sons of Satish Chandra Bhatt, correctly identified accused persons in Roorkee kutchery. He also said that those who looted the property on the fateful night were present before the court in person. The fact remains that looted property which was recovered from the possession of accused was correctly identified by this witness. The very fact that PW2 Jaswant Singh Negi sustained injuries from the hands of accused persons amply demonstrates that he was present when the incident took place. Learned Amicus Curiae also drew the attention of the Court towards the statement of PW3 Shashi Mohan whereby he said that he did not know the names of assailants who fired upon his father. He however, said that the assailant was a man of small height. The very fact that PW3 Shashi Mohan could not name the assailants does not indicate that he was unable to identify the culprits. Identifying culprits is one thing and naming them is another. Even if it be assumed that PW3 Shashi Mohan could not identify the dacoits since their faces were veiled as admitted by PW3 Shashi Mohan in his cross-examination, still the evidence of other eyewitnesses is there who identified the dacoits and one of them remembered their names also. It has come in the evidence that the witnesses went to Muzaffarnagar to identify the appellants. No other infirmities in the cross-examination of other witnesses were pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae. PW2 Jaswant Singh Negi identified household goods before the Executive Magistrate correctly. PW5 Anup Bhatt was in fact a star witness who stood unruffled in the face of storm. Deceased Satish Bhatt was an Ex-Armyman. His service medals were recovered from the possession of accused/appellant Rafi @ Furkan. The looted property was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Rafi alias Furkan. PW5 Anup Bhatt was in fact a star witness who stood unruffled in the face of storm. Deceased Satish Bhatt was an Ex-Armyman. His service medals were recovered from the possession of accused/appellant Rafi @ Furkan. The looted property was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Rafi alias Furkan. Recovery memo which bore the signatures of accused-appellant Rafi @ Furkan was proved by PW 6 Dinesh Chandra Bhandari, Inspector Vigilance and PW 7 V.D. Uniyal, Station Officer. Although there was no independent witness to the recovery of looted property from the possession of said accused-appellant, yet satisfactory explanation has been given for the same. There is no reason to disbelieve prosecution evidence offered in this context. Said accused-appellant has thus been rightly convicted by learned trial court in relation to offence punishable under Section 412 IPC also. 25. It is thus clear on the basis of above discussion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment & order therefore, does not call for any interference. 26. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal of the appellants Rafi alias Furkan, Sonu alias Chhota alias Shah Alam and Parvez is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants Rafi alias Furkan, Sonu alias Chota alias Shah Alam and Parvez is accordingly affirmed. They are in Jail. They shall serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded to them by the trial court and thus affirmed by this Court. An information to this effect be given to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are currently serving out the sentence. Let a copy of the Judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for ensuring compliance of the order.