I.A. Ansari, J.:— This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 05.03.2005, passed, in Sessions Case No.50 (DH)/2004, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 395 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) PW1 (Kunja Goswami), is the wife of Bipul Goswami, who was, at the relevant point of time, Manager of Statefed at Narayanpur and was at his workplace on the night of the occurrence, which took place on 21.06.96. On the night of the occurrence, PW1 was present in her house along with her son, Jugal Goswami (PW3). On the night of the occurrence, dacoits, armed with deadly weapons and numbering about ten, suddenly, entered into the house of PW1 by breaking open the door and switched off the lights of the house, but a small lantern was still lying lit inside the house, which was not put off, and, in the light of the burning lantern, PW1 and her son (PW3) saw the dacoits. The dacoits put Kunja Goswami and her children on the point of dagger and other deadly weapons and forced P W1 to hand over the key of the almirah, whereupon the dacoints removed all the valuables, such as, ornaments, wrist watch, cash amount of Rs.26,000/-. Even the ornaments were snatched away by the dacoits from the hands and neck of PW1. (ii) Hearing halla raised at the house of PW1, Bipul Sharma (PW2) rushed to Gogamukh Police outpost and informed the police orally that a dacoity was taking place at the house of Kunja Goswami (PW1), whereupon police party, led by A.S.I. Hiranya Chakradhar and S.I. Nirmal Kumar Baruah, proceeded in two different directions in search of the dacoits. Hiranya Chakradhar (P W7) intercepted accused Abdul Rashid (i.e., the present appellant), on the bank of river Subansiri, with some articles, which were being carried by accused-appellant, Abdul Rashid, by commission of dacoity. Another accused Hanif Ali was also arrested by police party. Hiranya Chakradhar (P W7) intercepted accused Abdul Rashid (i.e., the present appellant), on the bank of river Subansiri, with some articles, which were being carried by accused-appellant, Abdul Rashid, by commission of dacoity. Another accused Hanif Ali was also arrested by police party. Sub-Inspector, Nirmal Kumar Baruah (PW8) was, at the relevant point of time, In-Charge of the said outpost, who, then, came to the place of occurrence and received there a written Ejahar from PW1 (Kunja Goswami). Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report, Dhakuakhana Police Station Case No. 155/96, under Section 395IPC, was registered. Some of the articles, recovered from the present appellant, Abdul Rashid, as described hereinbefore, were identified by PW1 as her properties and these properties were given to her in her zimma. Altogether five accused were arrested by police. A Test Identification Parade (in short, ‘TIP’) was held by a Judicial Magistrate and the accused persons were identified by Kunja Goswami (PW1), Bipul Sharma (P W2) and Jugal Goswami (PW3) at the said TIP. 3. On completion of investigation, police aid charge-sheet, under Section 395 IPC, against the five accused persons, namely, jopal Das, Pradip Borah, Bikash Majumdar, abdul Rashind (i.e., the present appellant) and Hanif Ali. As three of the accused persons, namely, Gopal Das, Pradip Borah and Bikash Majumdar absconded, accused Abdul Rashid and Hanif Ali were put to trial. 4. During trial, a charge, under Section 395, was framed against the accused. To the charge, so framed, the accused pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforementioned, the accused denied to have committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 6. At the end of the trial, while the learned trial Court acquitted accused Hanif Ali of the charge, framed against him, under Section 395 IPC, the present appellant, Abdul Rashid, was found guilty of the offence under Section 395 IPC; he was accordingly convicted and sentence was passed against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, this appeal has been preferred by accused Abdul Rashid. 7. I have heard Mr. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, this appeal has been preferred by accused Abdul Rashid. 7. I have heard Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 8. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 being pivotal in nature, let me, first, examine their evidence. 9. According to the evidence of P W1, on the night of the occurrence, she was sleeping with her children, Jugal (PW3), Orindom and Santanu. A lantern was burning inside her house. It is in the evidence of PW1 that she woke up on hearing halla outside her house and 10/11 persons forced their entry into her house by breaking open the door from the backside of the house and, upon entering into the house, they demanded the key of the almirah from her and, out of fear of her life, she handed over the keys to them. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that the dacoits were armed with dagger, etc, and she was forced to maintain silence. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that the dacoits took away one set of gold ornament, two gold earrings and cash of Rs.26,000/- and they also snatched away bangle from her hand, one ring from her finger and a gold chain from her neck and another two gold chains, one torch light, one Nepaki Khukri, one camera, one lady's wrist watch. 10. Since the evidence of PW1 was recorded on 07.10.2004 and the alleged occurrence had taken place on 21.06.96, P W1 clearly deposed that as the incident had taken place in the year 1996, she had forgotten the details of the articles removed by the dacoits. 11. What is important to note, in the evidence of PW1, is that she has claimed that in the light of the lantern, which was burning inside her house, she saw accused Hanif Ali as well as other accused persons. She identified two of the accused in the dock, when her evidence was being recorded. This witness has further asserted that a Test Identification Parade was held in the Court campus, where she identified the accused persons. 12. Though cross-examined, at length, nothing of significance could be elicited by the defence to show that what had been deposed to by PW1 was untrue or false. This witness has further asserted that a Test Identification Parade was held in the Court campus, where she identified the accused persons. 12. Though cross-examined, at length, nothing of significance could be elicited by the defence to show that what had been deposed to by PW1 was untrue or false. In fact, in her evidence, she claimed that the dacoits had not damaged the lantern and that police arrived at her house soon after the occurrence. 13. Thus, it becomes evident that PW1 has given a clear version of the facts of dacoity and also the fact that a Test Identification Parade was held and she had identified the accused, because she had seen the accused in the light of the lantern, which was burning inside her house at the time of the alleged occurrence. 14. Though it has been pointed by Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, that the Investigating Officer has confirmed that in her previous statement recorded by police, P W1 had not stated that a lantern was burning inside her house, what is extremely important to note, in this regard, is that while cross-examining PW1, the defence never enquired from her if she had stated before the police that a lantern was burning inside her house at the time of the occurrence nor was it suggested to her that she had not stated in her previous statement, made to the police, that a lantern was kept lit inside her house at the time of the occurrence. Having not put any such question to PW1 and/ or having not put any suggestion, in this regard, to PW 1, the confirmatory evidence, which the defence has elicited from the Investigating Officer, can be of no avail at all. 15. Since it is the previous statement of P W1, which is sought to be contradicted by the defence, it was the duty of the defence to put the contradiction, if any, to PW1. Had she admitted the omission in her previous statement to the effect that she had really not made any statement to the police earlier that a lantern was burning inside her house at the time of the occurrence, there was no need for the defence to take confirmation of this omission from the Investigating Officer. Had she admitted the omission in her previous statement to the effect that she had really not made any statement to the police earlier that a lantern was burning inside her house at the time of the occurrence, there was no need for the defence to take confirmation of this omission from the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the confirmation from the investigating officer was needed only if PW1 had denied the defence suggestion, in this regard, by asserting that she had made the statement before the police, in the past, that at the time of commission of dacoity, a lantern was burning inside the house. 16. Thus, when the omission, in question, had not been put to PW1, the confirmation, elicited by the defence from the investigating officer, was of no legal consequence and cannot, therefore, be attributed any importance at all. 17. What logically follows from the above discussion that the evidence of PW1 remained wholly intact and this Court sees no reason to disbelieve her evidence. From the evidence of PW1, it has also transpired that she had identified some of the ornaments, which had been taken away by the dacoits. The fact that dacoity had taken place at the house of PW1 and that the dacoits identified by her, had snatched away the ornaments could not be effectively assailed by the defence. 18. What emerges from the evidence of PW1 is that her evidence is sufficient to show that a dacoity had taken place as described by her and at the time, when dacoity was so committed, a lantern was burning inside her house and, in the light of the lantern, PW1 had identified accused-appellant, Abdul Rashid, and that she had also identified some of the ornaments, which had been recovered by the police from the possession of the accused-appellant. 19. Bearing in mind what has been indicated above, let me, now, turn to the evidence of PW3 (Jugal Goswami). This witness, who was, admittedly, aged about 12 years, at the time of occurrence, her deposed that on the night of the occurrence, he was sleeping with his mother and brother, the dacoits came to their house raising halla and the dacoits entered into the house by breaking open the door. This witness, who was, admittedly, aged about 12 years, at the time of occurrence, her deposed that on the night of the occurrence, he was sleeping with his mother and brother, the dacoits came to their house raising halla and the dacoits entered into the house by breaking open the door. PW3 has also deposed that he got up from the bed, the dacoits demanded the key of the almirah from his mother and asked her to hand over money, they forcibly opened the almirah, removed cash, ornaments and other belongings. This witness has also deposed that the dacoits snatched away ornaments from the hands and neck of his mother and as there was halla outside the house, the dacoits fled away with the articles, which they had taken from the house of this witness. It is in the evidence of PW3 that the dacoits had switched off the lights of his house, but a lantern was burning inside the house and the dacoits also flashed the torch lights inside the house and he saw the faces of the dacoits. It is also in the evidence of PW3 that the dacoits put dao over his neck and asked him not to cry or shout for help. This witness identified the accused standing in the dock at the time of recording his evidence and it is in his evidence that some of the articles, removed by the dacoits, were recovered by the police. 20. In his cross-examination also, this witness has asserted that a lantern was burning inside his house at the time of the occurrence and, in the light of the lantern, he saw the accused persons and could identify them. Even while cross-examining PW3, nothing significant could be elicited by the defence, which can be taken to have shaken the credibility of the evidence given by P W3. The material aspects of the evidence of PW3 have, therefore, remained unshaken and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve his evidence or the evidence of his mother (P W1), which I have already discussed above. 21. The material aspects of the evidence of PW3 have, therefore, remained unshaken and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve his evidence or the evidence of his mother (P W1), which I have already discussed above. 21. Turning to the evidence of PW2 (Bipul Sharma), it may be noted that according to his evidence, at the time of the occurrence, he used to reside in the rented house of P W1, located in the same courtyard, wherein was also located the house of PW1, and at midnight, he heard somebody beating at the walls of his house. While he tried to came out of his house by opening the door, the dacoits asked him not to come out and, hence, he remained inside the house and, then, he heard the sound of breaking the door of PW1. It is in the evidence of PW2 that he made some sound by striking at the C.I. sheet roofing of the 'house and, on hearing the sound, the neighbourer started assembling. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that the dacoits locked him from outside and it was unlocked by one person and, then, he came to the house of PW1 and came to know that dacoity was committed at the house of PW1. The evidence of P W2, thus, supports the fact that a dacoity did take place at the house of P W1 and PW3. 22. So far as PW4 is concerned, his evidence shows that he, too, used to reside, at the house of PW1, for prosecuting his studies at College and his evidence is that at the time of occurrence, the dacoits started beating the door of PW1 and as he heard halla, he woke up and wanted to come out of his house, but found somebody pushing a dao through the door pointing at him, whereupon he raised alarm and started striking at the roof of the house with a lathi and this attracted the attention of the neighbouring people and after about 20 minutes, he could come out of his house, he found two dacoits in the courtyard, who started chasing him, whereupon he ran towards the backside of the house and went to Gogamukh Outpost and informed the police and along with police, he came back to the place of occurrence. It is in the evidence of PW4 that police followed the dacoits and he also accompanied police upto Sunapur Railway line and by the side of the road there, they found the dacoit, who, suddenly, jumped into the deep water and only one dacoit could be arrested by the police and he was identified as Abdul Rashid. This witness has identified, at the T.I.P, all the five dacoits, who stand charge-sheeted. This witness (P W4) identified the accused, Abdul Rashid, at the trial too. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P W4 to render his evidence unbelievable. His evidence, therefore, clearly shows that the present appellant was caught with some of the articles, which had been obtained by commission of dacoity at the house of PW1 and were recovered by police inasmuch as these articles were, later on, identified by PW1. 23. As far as P W5 and P W6 are concerned, they are merely seizure witnesses. 24. Coming to the evidence of PW8, who was in-Charge of Gogamukh Police Station at the relevant point of time, I notice that according to his evidence, P W2 lodged oral information, at the police outpost, regarding the incident of dacoity at the house of PW1, whereupon he made G.D. Entry No.364, dated 21.06.96, and started investigation. It is in the evidence of P W8 that he, along with his other police staff, proceeded in one direction and he sent ASI Hiranya Chakradhar (P W7) in another direction and when he came to know that dacoits had started running towards Railway line, he too proceeded in that direction and, on the way, one torch light, two ten Rupees note, one five rupees note were found and he seized the same by a seizure list, which is Ext.4. PW8, then, came to the place of occurrence and received the FIR from PW1 and a case was accordingly registered. PW8, then, came to the place of occurrence and received the FIR from PW1 and a case was accordingly registered. It is also in the evidence of PW8 that by the time he received the FIR, accused Abdul Rashid had already been arrested by PW7 along with the articles removed by the dacoits from the house of PW1 and that by this time, accused Hanif Ali was also arrested and he came to know that accused Gopal Das, Pradip Borah and Bikash Majumdar had been detained by the police of North Lakhimpur Police Station, whereupon he brought them to Gogamukh Police outpost and, on his request, a TIP was held. 25. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW8, PW7 has deposed that after the oral information received from Bipul Sharma (PW2), a G.D. Entry was made and he proceeded to arrest the dacoits. It is in the evidence of PW7 that instead of going to the place of occurrence, he, along with his staff, proceeded towards Subansiri bridge and while he was coming towards Gogamukh from the Railway line, he found the dacoits near the Social Forest area, but except accused Abdul Rashid, the other accused fled away. Abdul Rashid was arrested and he found some clothes, gold ornaments, cash amount and torch light along with a dagger and seized the said articles by a seizure list, which is Ext.3. In his cross-examination, PW7 has clearly stated that the chain and cash belonged to Bipul Goswami, husband of the informant, and they identified those ornaments and that while the other accused had jumped into water near the Railway line and made good their escape, accused Abdul Rashid was actually hiding in the bushes and he was apprehended. 26. From the evidence that I have discussed above, it becomes clear that so far as PW1 and PW2 are concerned, they have given clear and consistent descriptions of the version of dacoity, which had taken place at their house and the fact that a lantern was burning inside the house and, in the light of the lantern, they could see the dacoits. In such circumstances, identification of the present appellant by these witnesses cannot, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, be disbelieved. In such circumstances, identification of the present appellant by these witnesses cannot, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, be disbelieved. This apart, the present accused was caught with some of the articles, which the dacoits had taken away from the house of PW1, the articles having been identified by PW1. 27. Because of the evidence, which have been discussed above, I do not find that the learned trial Court committed any error in coming to the conclusion, which it has reached, that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that more than five persons had co-jointly committed robbery in the house of PW1 and removed cash from her house, the accused were armed with deadly weapons and they committed thereby robbery putting the inmates of house into fear of their lives and committed thereby the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 IPC. 28. Considering the fact that accused Abdul Rashid was clearly identified as the person caught with the ornaments and other articles, which had been taken from the house of PW1 by commission of dacoity, the learned trial Court held that the accused-appellant had been proved guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt, of having committed the offence under Section 395 IPC. This Court does not find that the conclusion, so reached, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. 29. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant does not call for any interference. Even the sentence, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be harsh, excessive or unreasonable. The sentence too, therefore, calls for no interference. 30. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 31. The bail bonds of the accused-appellant are hereby cancelled and his surety is hereby discharged. 32. The accused-appellant is hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the learned trial Court, in order to serve out the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. 33. Send back the LCR. _____________