Judgment : Ratnaker Bhengra,J. When the matter was called out no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. On the last occasion also none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, Mr. Debarsi Mandal is being appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this court. 2 This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2000 and order of sentence dated 19.8.2000 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 210 of 1993 whereby the above named appellants have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for ten years under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and two years under sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences would run concurrently. 3. The appellants were facing trial for the offence under sections 353/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation, as per FIR made by Sri Arjun Ram(P.W.6) S.I Padma O.P under the P.S. of Barhi addressed to the Officer In-charge of Barhi Police station, is that on 11.6.1992 at about 12.45 p.m the informant received information that some miscreants were running away in a cement colour Ambasador Car no. DEB 4681 after committing dacoity in the Bank of India, Barkagaon Branch and they were being chased by the S.P Hazaribagh along with his driver and personal security guard. On getting information, he along with others reached near Barhi Chouk. On the road towards Telaiya, they found the said car going ahead and so they tried to intercept the car and in the meantime two accused persons from the car fired on them. They also fired on them and reached near the car of the miscreants. Thereafter two miscreants started running away towards west. The security guard and the driver of the S.P. Hazaribagh chased them. As soon as the S.P reached near the left gate of the car, one accused pushed him by the gate and fired on him as a result of which S.P fell down on the ground. Seeing this, the informant reached near the left gate of the car and the S.P fired on the accused persons and out of whom two sustained injuries and fell down in the earth and the informant apprehended one accused. After sometime, the two injured accused died there. The driver and the body guard of the S.P returned back and reported that the accused persons could not be apprehended. After sometime, the two injured accused died there. The driver and the body guard of the S.P returned back and reported that the accused persons could not be apprehended. The apprehended accused disclosed his name as Rajesh .He also disclosed the name of two deceased accused as Ashok Singh and Ram Pravesh Singh. He also disclosed the name of two escaping accused as Rajnandan Psrasad and Sravan Prasad. The looted money was recovered from the car. On being searched the fire arms and ammunitions were also recovered from the possession of Rajesh Kumar and possession of two deceased accused persons which were seized and a seizure list was prepared. On the basis of the information a case was instituted against them and during course of investigation accused Srawan Kumar was arrested. 5. Altogether as many as 12 witnesses have been examined in this case. During trial under section 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons have been examined and they denied the allegations levelled against them. They have not entered into any positive defence. 6. The informant of this case has been examined as P.W6. He stated in his deposition that on 11.6.1992 at about 12.55 p.m when he was accompanying with the S.P Hazaribagh after getting information that the dacoits were running in an Ambassador car after committing dacoity in the Bank of India, Barkagaon Branch and reached near Barhi Chouk at 1 p.m, they found the car no. DEB 4681 going ahead on Telaiya road. They intercepted the said car. Thereafter two accused persons fired on them but it did not hit them upon which they also fired on them. After opening the gate of the car two accused persons started fleeing away. In the meantime one accused fired on the S.P for which the S.P fell down on the earth. He also fired on the accused persons, as a result of which, two of them sustained injuries and fell down on the ground and died thereafter. One miscreant was apprehended with pistol and cartridges. On search 9 live cartridges of .315 bore were also recovered from his possession. He further deposed that the apprehended accused disclosed the name of two other deceased accused and two escaping accused. The looted money on search was recovered from the car. Two pistols and used cartridges were also recovered from the possession of deceased accused and the seizure list was prepared. He further deposed that the apprehended accused disclosed the name of two other deceased accused and two escaping accused. The looted money on search was recovered from the car. Two pistols and used cartridges were also recovered from the possession of deceased accused and the seizure list was prepared. He has proved Ext.2 and Ext.1. He identified both the accused persons in dock. In the cross examination, he had been asked many questions regarding occurrence and manner of the same and from his deposition it appears that there is no reason to disbelieve him at any point. He stood to the test and from his evidence it is established that the accused persons Rajesh Kumar and Sharawan Kumar actively participated in the occurrence along with deceased accused and other absconding accused. 7. The evidence of P.W 6 (informant) has been corroborated by P.W.2 who was the driver of staff car of the S.P Hazaribagh. He also deposed that on 11.6.1992 on getting information about dacoity in a Bank, he along with the S.P Hazaribagh proceeded towards Khirgaon More and from there he came to know that one Ambassador car was going towards Hazaribagh and so he proceeded towards Hazaribagh and in course of chasing the car he reached Barhi Chouk and found the said car was going ahead. The car was intercepted and from that car two miscreants started fleeing away towards west who were chased by him and the security guard of the S.P but they could not be apprehended. When they returned they recovered Rs. 106080 from the car and seizure list was prepared. 8. P.W 3 is the security guard of the S.P Hazaribagh. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W2. In cross examination, he deposed that the apprehended accused had disclosed him to be the driver of the car. It is true that he was unable to say that whether any article had been recovered from the possession of the accused but that is not sufficient to discredit him. 9. P.W 4 has been declared hostile to the prosecution because he had resiled from his previous statement. In his deposition he had admitted that he was the driver of the police force. But it is very surprising that a police staff has not supported the case of prosecution particularly when he was present at the place of occurrence as admitted by him. In his deposition he had admitted that he was the driver of the police force. But it is very surprising that a police staff has not supported the case of prosecution particularly when he was present at the place of occurrence as admitted by him. He denied the suggestion that he was in collusion with the accused persons. P.W 5 has proved inquest report prepared before him. 10. P.W 1 is the doctor who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased miscreants and had found that death of both the deceased had been caused due to bullet injuries. He proved ext. 1 and 1/1.There is nothing in his deposition to support the defence version and he also corroborated the case of prosecution that the deceased had died due to gunshot injuries in encounter. 11. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the seizure witnesses who have proved their signatures over the seizure list (Exts. 1/2 and 2/1) 12. P.W 11 in his deposition stated that about 7 years ago when he was at Barhi Chouk he heard sound of firing and then went there. The S.P Hazaribagh and other police officers were there and two of the miscreants were lying dead there. He has been cross examined under section 154 of the Evidence Act because he resiled from his previous statement made before the police that he had seen the occurrence in which the miscreants had fired on the S.P. Two miscreants had died in encounter, two had fled away and one was apprehended and lastly that money was recovered from the car. He has denied the suggestion that he was in collusion with the accused persons. 13. P.W. 7, Rabindra Kumar Singh is the S.P Hazaribagh. He stated in his deposition that when he was posted as S.P at Hazaribagh on 11.6.1992 he received telephonic information that some miscreants were running away in an Ambassador car after committing dacoity in the Bank of India, Barkagaon branch and so he along with his personal security guard and driver of the staff car proceeded towards Barkgaon. But on his way to Barkagaon he was informed by the officer in charge that miscreants were going towards Hazaribagh and so he returned from there and then he gave information on wireless to the police party to be alert and proceeded towards Barhi. But on his way to Barkagaon he was informed by the officer in charge that miscreants were going towards Hazaribagh and so he returned from there and then he gave information on wireless to the police party to be alert and proceeded towards Barhi. When he reached near Padma petrol pump he wanted to proceeded towards Itkhori but he did not find any sign of car tyre towards Itkhori side and so he proceeded towards Barhi and at Barhi he found a cement colour Ambassador car going ahead towards Telaiya which was overtaken and stopped on the road. As soon as he reached there , two miscreants came out of car and fired on them. They also encountered the firing and when two miscreants tried to escape his driver and security guard started chasing him. In the meantime, he reached near the gate of the said car and so one miscreant pushed the door of the car and fired on him but he fell down and started counter firing. Again two miscreants fired on him from the back of the car. In the meantime, Arjun Ram chased one miscreants escaping from there and apprehended him. He disclosed his name as Rajesh Kumar. From his possession some fire arm and cartridges were recovered and from the car Rs.1,06080/-was recovered. It is further stated in the deposition that in counter firing two miscreants died whose name was disclosed as Ram Pravesh Singh and Ashok Singh and two others escaped whose name he did not remember. In cross examination of this witness, several questions had been asked but he seemed to have satisfactorily answered them and asserted that he did not receive any injury though some muscle pain was there. 14. P.W 8 Mr. D.S Mishra, Judicial Magistrate posted at Hazaribagh stated that he had conducted T.I.P of suspect of the case and witnesses and he identified the miscreant before. He proved ext.2. In his deposition it appears that there is no reasons to disbelieve him . 15. P.W.12 is the Officer in charge of Barhi Police station. He stated in his deposition that on receiving information at about 1.45 p.m that there was encounter between the police and miscreants and he made station diary entry no. 246 dated 11.6.1992 and proceeded with S.I Brijnandan Singh A.S.I Srinaryan Tiwary. 15. P.W.12 is the Officer in charge of Barhi Police station. He stated in his deposition that on receiving information at about 1.45 p.m that there was encounter between the police and miscreants and he made station diary entry no. 246 dated 11.6.1992 and proceeded with S.I Brijnandan Singh A.S.I Srinaryan Tiwary. He also assisted in searching miscreants and then he received written report, seizure list, seized articles and got the case registered in Barhi Police Station as Barhi P.S Case No. 105 of 1992 and took up investigation. During course of investigation he visited place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of witnesses including the informant and the S.P and other miscreants and after sometime recorded the statement of accused he submitted the charge sheet. He stated in his evidence that Mannan Warsi had deposed before him that he was the eye witness of occurrence and that he had identified the accused persons. In his cross examination there is nothing to discredit him nor there is any inconsistency. 16. After going through the records and the apparent facts and circumstances it is clear that the accused persons Rajesh Kumar @ Deonandan Prasad Gupta and Sharawan Kumar @ Shrawan Prasad were involved and guilty for the offence under sections 307/34 and under sections 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Lower court below was correct in convicting them. 17. There are as many as six witnesses who either witnessed the incident or parts of the incident, hence linking of the chain of circumstances. 18. Amongst these witnesses are P.W.6 Arjun Ram,P.W.2 Md. Sahabuddin, P.W 3 Harinarayan Singh P.W.7 Rabindra Kumar Singh and P.W.12 Brendra Prasad Yadav. 19 In fact evidence of P.W6 is corroborated by P.W 2 and the evidence of P.W 2 has been corroborated by P.W 3.So there is sufficient evidence as well as corroboration of evidence to establish the crime as well as the guilt of the two accused persons herein. The evidence of the P.W 1, who is the doctor, only goes towards corroborating that two miscreants had died due to gun shot injuries during encounter which would also go towards corroborating evidence of P.W.7. 20. Rs.106080/-was part of the recovered looted money which adds to prove allegation of dacoity, later to which encounter took place and hence the subsequent offence under sections 307/34 and section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. 20. Rs.106080/-was part of the recovered looted money which adds to prove allegation of dacoity, later to which encounter took place and hence the subsequent offence under sections 307/34 and section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Thus having perused the matter and on the basis of the records and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it is concluded that the accused persons Rajesh Kumar and Sharawan Kumar were rightly convicted for the offence under sections 307/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the lower Court below. Hence this appeal is disallowed. It has also been indicated that the appellants are poor persons and are in custody for about nine years. 22. Considering the fact that the appellants have spent about nine years in custody and undergone rigour of trial, the sentence is modified. The sentence will be to the extent to the period that they have already undergone. From the records of the case it is not clear that whether the appellants are still on bail or they are still in custody. Since sentence is being modified, it is directed to the court below to verify whether the appellants are in custody or not. Accordingly, to issue a release order, if they are in custody or if they are on bail, they are hereby discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 23. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.