JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, the amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants in both cases, Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 121 of 2010, Mr. Shishir Suman, the learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 133 of 2010 as well as Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State in both cases. 2. A letter dated 30-01-2020 has been received from S.I.-cum-officer-in-charge of Sadar police station, Chaibasa, stating therein that appellant no.1 namely Sikandar Sao alias Sikandar alias Sikandar Halwai @ Siku, son of Madan Sao had died on 09-03-2015 and an affidavit dated 29-01-2020 has been filed by the brother of appellant no.1 namely Sonu Sao S/o Late Madan Sao documented with death certificate of his deceased brother. On perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, I find that another alias name of appellant no.1 has been indicated as Amit Sao and in the death certificate issued on 19-08-2015 also, name of dead person is shown as Amit Sao. But, the name of Amit Sao does not figure as alias name of appellant no.1 in the cause title of memo of his appeal. Be that as it may, in view of affidavit dated 29-01-2020 of appellant's no.-1 brother namely Sonu Sao son of Late Madan Sao and in view of report dated 30-01-2020 of the officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa, appeal of appellant no.1 stands abated. 3. Both these criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 27.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case Nos. 79 of 2005 and 237 of 2005, whereby and where under, all the appellants were convicted under Sections 452/448/427 and 435/149 of IPC and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo SI for six months under Section 427 IPC and three months SI under Section 448 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo two years SI and a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence committed under Section 452 IPC, six months SI and a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 435/149 IPC and one year SI for the conviction under section 148 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo two years SI and a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence committed under Section 452 IPC, six months SI and a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 435/149 IPC and one year SI for the conviction under section 148 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and period undergone was ordered to be set off. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 01-09-2004 of the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav wife of Mohan Yadav is that on 01-09-2004 at about 11:30 am she was inside her house. All of sudden, she heard knocking of her door and she came out in her courtyard and saw a crowd of about two hundred persons. In the crowd she saw Dharmu Ghasi, Kali Ghasi, Jitu Ghasi, Sikwa @ Sikandra Halwai, Bhola Ghasi, Chunnu Karwa and Lakhan Tiwari armed with swords and other persons were armed with lathi, danda and bhala. Informant asked them why they had come to her house, to which persons from the crowd abused her and asked where is Madan Yadav and Sikandar Yadav and told her to bring them out. Informant said that they were not in the house thereupon Dharmu Ghasi, Kali Ghasi, Jitu Ghasi, Sikwa @ Sikandar Halwai, Bhola Ghasi, Chunnu Karwa and Lakhan Tiwari, all resident of Gadikhana, Sadar police station, District- West'Singhbhum dashed her boundary wall made of wood and entered into her house. Dharmu Ghasi caught hold of the informant's hair and dragged her and assaulted her with sword, but, the informant bent down and saved herself. Informant further stated that Lakhan Tiwari pushed her mother-in-law and she fell down on the ground as a result she sustained injury on the finger of her left leg and waist. The accused persons damaged the white coloured Ambassador car bearing no. BPT 66 parked at the door by lathi and danda as a result of which glass, bonnet, seat and gate etc. of the car was damaged. Thereafter, accused persons went to her new house situated at Noapatti. The accused persons damaged the white coloured Ambassador car bearing no. BPT 66 parked at the door by lathi and danda as a result of which glass, bonnet, seat and gate etc. of the car was damaged. Thereafter, accused persons went to her new house situated at Noapatti. Later on, informant came to know that accused persons had broke open the lock of the house by hitting the lock with bricks and stones and then entered into her house and burnt Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. JH-06A-3866 kept in the house by sprinkling petrol over it and the accused persons had broke the door and glass of the window also. In the meantime, police party came at the old house and the accused persons fled away. Informant stated that the reason for the cause of occurrence was that there was dispute over the matter of agency at Chaibasa Bus Stand between informant's husband Madan Yadav and informant's nephew Sikandra Yadav on one side and owner of Harikrishna Bus namely Shankar Yadav on other side for last three to four months and hence, Shankar Yadav was involved in this occurrence. 5. On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant, FIR being Sadar P.S. case no. 65 of 2004 dated 01-09-2004 was lodged against seven named accused persons and about 200 unknown persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 436, 427 and 506 IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants herein under sections 148, 436/149, 323 and 452 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of the trial appellants was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses out of whom PW-4 Bela Yadav is the informant of the case. Here it is pertinent to note that initially trial of S.T. No. 79/2005 commenced in which PW-1 Lalita Devi, who is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the informant and PW-2 Malti Devi, who is the neighbour of the informant was examined. Later on S.T. No. 237/2005 was amalgamated with S.T. No. 79 of 2005 and again the said PW-1 Lalita Devi and PW-2 Malti Devi was examined. Later on S.T. No. 237/2005 was amalgamated with S.T. No. 79 of 2005 and again the said PW-1 Lalita Devi and PW-2 Malti Devi was examined. PW-3 is Subash Chandra Yadav and he is a seizure list witness; PW-5 is Gulabi Devi and she is the mother-in-law of the informant; PW-6 is Mohan Lal, the Investigating Officer of the case and PW-7 is Arun Bhagat and he was declared hostile. 7. PW-4 Bela Yadav is the informant of the case. Informant has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 11:30 am, she was in her courtyard. She heard uproar and saw several people came to her house saying filthy words and started breaking the wooden barrier outside her house. They were searching for Madan Yadav and Sikandar Yaday. Over more than 200 persons were in the crowd out of which she identified 8-9 persons namely Dharmu Minz @ Dharmu Ghasi, Kali Khatik, Chunnu Karwa, Jitu Ghasi, Pappu Karwa, Fenta, Umesh Sinha, Pradeep Ghasi and they were armed with swords. Accused persons damaged the Ambassador car kept outside her house and also assaulted the buffalo and calf with the sword and injured them and two calves died after two days. Accused persons were abusing her and pushed her by pulling her hair. Dharmu Minz gave sword blow on her but she bent down and saved herself. On hearing halla Gulabi Devi, who is her mother-in-law, came out but, the accused persons also pushed her as a result she received injuries on finger of her right leg. Accused persons damaged the cooler kept outside the house. Informant further stated that the crowd went to her new house but the gate of the house was locked. Accused persons broke open the lock and damaged the glasses etc. of house and damaged the outer door with sword. Accused persons burnt the motor-cycle bearing No. JH-06A-3866 standing outside by sprinkling petrol over it. Informant had proved her signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-2. Informant had identified the accused persons in the dock and named them Fenta, Chunnu Karwa, Dharmu Minz, Kali Khatik, Pradeep Ghasi, Jitu Ghasi and Umesh Sinha and claimed to identify other accused persons. In her cross-examination informant had stated that she had named them Fenta, Pappu, Umesh and Pradeep among the accused persons in her fardbayan. Informant had identified the accused persons in the dock and named them Fenta, Chunnu Karwa, Dharmu Minz, Kali Khatik, Pradeep Ghasi, Jitu Ghasi and Umesh Sinha and claimed to identify other accused persons. In her cross-examination informant had stated that she had named them Fenta, Pappu, Umesh and Pradeep among the accused persons in her fardbayan. The first occurrence took place in her old house and second occurrence took place in her new house and she had followed the crowd and entered her house when crowd had gone. Her mother-in-law was treated at T.M.H. but, she herself was not treated. 8. PW-1 Lalita Devi is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the informant and PW-2 Malti Devi is the neighbour of the informant and both were examined in both the sessions trials separately and both have deposed almost the same in their depositions. PW-1 had stated in her evidence that several persons came armed with sword, spade and danda etc. and broke the boundary of the house and accused persons damaged the Ambassador car parked outside. Thereafter, accused persons went to the new house of the informant which is nearby the old house and broke the lock of the new house. Dharmu had petrol and Kali Khatik had match-box in their hand and Kali Khatik set-ablazed the Victor Motorcycle by sprinkling petrol over it. In her cross-examination in S.T. No. case no. 79 of 2005, PW-1 deposed that motorcycle was in new house and Ambassador Car was in her mother's house. PW-1 had also disclosed in para-16 that one Bapi was murdered and in the murder case her brother Madan Yadav and her nephew was named. PW- 2 Malti Devi had stated in her evidence that at the time of occurrence, she was at the door of her house and saw several accused persons armed with sword, spade and danda arrived at the house of Madan Yadav and said to bring out Madan Yadav and Sikandar Yaday. The crowd broke the boundary and entered into the house and assaulted the informant by sword but, informant bent down and saved herself. The crowd damaged the car. PW-2 had identified Dharmu and Pappu among the crowd. Thereafter, the crowd proceeded towards the new house of Madan. In her cross-examination PW-2 deposed that occurrence continued for an hour and when police came accused persons fled away. 9. The crowd damaged the car. PW-2 had identified Dharmu and Pappu among the crowd. Thereafter, the crowd proceeded towards the new house of Madan. In her cross-examination PW-2 deposed that occurrence continued for an hour and when police came accused persons fled away. 9. PW-3 Subash Chandra Yadav is a seizure list witness. He has stated in his evidence that police had seized burnt motorcycle from the house of Madan in his presence. PW-3 had recognised his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Ext.-1. 10. PW-5 Gulabi Devi is the mother-in-law of the informant. She had stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence Dharmu, Fenta and 20 to 30 other persons entered into her house. Dharmu Minz blew sword on her which hit on the cooler, but, she fell down out of fear as a result she sustained injury on her knee. PW-5 further stated that accused persons had damaged the car and burnt the motorcycle and the door of the house was also burnt. PW-5 had identified Pappu Karwa, Pradeep Behra and Jitu Karwa. In her cross-examination PW-5 stated that the distance between two houses are one hundred yards. She did not tell the police that Dharmu Minz had given sword blow on her. 11. PW-6 is Mohan Lal, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Investigating Officer had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence on 01.09.2004, he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Sadar Police station in District-Singhbhum West. On that day information was received that at Gwalapatti, in the house of Madan Yadav several persons had assembled and incident of breaking and arson had taken place. Investigating Officer further stated that after registering sanha, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and established peace and order and took the statement of the informant Bela Yaday. Investigating Officer had proved the fardbeyan of the informant which was marked as Ext.-3. Investigating Officer further stated that there are two places of occurrence, one is residential house of the informant situated at Gwalappati and the other place of occurrence is the new house of the informant and the distance between the new house and old house is 700 yards. Investigating Officer further stated that there are two places of occurrence, one is residential house of the informant situated at Gwalappati and the other place of occurrence is the new house of the informant and the distance between the new house and old house is 700 yards. Investigating Officer had further proved the formal FIR, seizure list of the burnt motorcycle and signature of Basant Mistri on the seizure list which were marked as Ext.-4, Ext.-5 and Ext.-5/1 respectively. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:- 12. (i) Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 121 of 2010 has taken this Court to the evidence of the PW-1 Lalita Devi, at para-2 and pointed out that PW-1 had identified Pradeep Mehra and Jitu Karwa, who were present in the court. Learned counsel submits that from her deposition, it is apparent that the appellant Dharmu Minj was not identified by this witness. Further, learned counsel refers to Para-14 of the evidence of PW-1 and submits that PW-1 had deposed that she did not tell the police that petrol or matchstick were being carried by Dharmu Minj and Kali Khatik respectively, but, in para-1 of her evidence, PW-1 is emphatic that Dharmu Minj had petrol in his hand and Kali Khatik had a matchstick in his hand. Learned counsel, therefore, says that there is varying deposition of PW-1 in para-1 and para-14 and hence, PW-1 is highly unreliable. Learned counsel further referring to the para-18 of the evidence of PW-1, pointed out that she had deposed that only PW-4 Bela Yadav was injured, but, this is at variance or in contradiction to the FIR as in the FIR informant Bela Yadav had indicated that Lakhan Tiwari had pushed the informant's mother-in-law Gulabi Devi and she fell down on the ground and sustained injury on her finger of left leg and waist. So, it is clear as per FIR, two persons were assaulted while in the evidence of PW-1, it is only the informant, who is the sole person, who seems to have been assaulted and, therefore, there is differences in the FIR and evidence of PW-1 Lalita Devi. So, it is clear as per FIR, two persons were assaulted while in the evidence of PW-1, it is only the informant, who is the sole person, who seems to have been assaulted and, therefore, there is differences in the FIR and evidence of PW-1 Lalita Devi. (ii) Learned counsel further referring to para-2 of the evidence of PW-2 Malti Devi, submits that at para-2 of her deposition Pappu Kharwa had assaulted informant Bela Yadav with a sword, but, informant had bent down and saved herself. Learned counsel then says that this is at variance or in contradiction to the evidence of the PW-4 informant as informant in para-3 had deposed that Dharmu Minj had attempted to assault the informant Bela Yadav by a sword but she had ducked and assault had missed. Learned counsel, hence, submits that there is contradiction in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 that as to who had assaulted Bela Yadav, whether Pappu Kharwa or Dharmu Minj and hence, the allegation of assault is doubtful. Learned counsel further points out para-12 of the evidence of PW-2 and submits that PW-2 did not identify Pappu by herself but she identified Pappu only because he was being called or being named by the crowd and hence, PW-2 had not really identified Pappu Kharwa. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellants then refers to the evidence of PW-3 Subhash Chandra Yadav and pointed out that he is the seizure-list witness, however, he is unreliable since he did not read the contents of the seizure-list, and hence, he would not have any idea that what was seized if any at all. (iv) Learned counsel for the appellants further refers to the evidence of PW-4 Bela Yadav, who is the informant herself and pointed out that the informant in Para-3 of her deposition had deposed that Dharmu Minj had attempted to assault her with sword, but, she had ducked and hence escaped from this particular assault. Learned counsel says that this is contradictory to the evidence of PW-2 Malti Devi as in para-2, PW-2 had deposed that the appellant Pappu Kharwa had assaulted her with a sword. Learned counsel says that this is contradictory to the evidence of PW-2 Malti Devi as in para-2, PW-2 had deposed that the appellant Pappu Kharwa had assaulted her with a sword. Learned counsel for the appellants says that this raises question as to who is to be believed whether the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav or the other witness PW-2 Malti Devi, who is the neighbor of the informant and therefore, both these witnesses, informant as well as the neighbour are unreliable witness and cannot be believed and, hence, considerably weaken the case against the appellants. On identification, learned counsel for the appellants says that in para-10, the informant had deposed that she had conveyed the names of Fenta, Pappu, Umesh and Pradeep, however, all these names have not been named in the FIR. Hence, this raises the question as to what is to be believed whether the FIR or the evidence of the informant. Learned counsel says that because of this variance or contradiction, both in the FIR as well as in the evidence of PW-4, deposition of the informant becomes doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellants further says that in the FIR only the names of Dharmu Minj, Kali Khatik, Jitu Ghasi and Sikandar Sao were mentioned amongst the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants, hence, submits that this is a major contradiction because she had named certain or different persons in the FIR and different persons in her evidence, therefore, totally weakening the case against the appellants herein. (v) Learned counsel for the appellants again raises doubt on identification of the appellants and referred to para-22 of the evidence of the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav wherein informant had deposed that she recognized Dharmu Minj by his appearance and also Chunnu Karwa, Fenta and Umesh by appearance. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that among these alleged accused persons only the appellants Dharmu Minj was mentioned in the FIR and Fenta and Umesh were not named in the FIR. Finally, as the last point from the evidence of the informant, learned counsel for the appellants points out that informant in her evidence in para- 16 had deposed that her mother-in-law PW-5 Gulabi Devi was treated as T.M.H., however, counsel points out that there is no medical papers or injury reports to substantiate the same. Finally, as the last point from the evidence of the informant, learned counsel for the appellants points out that informant in her evidence in para- 16 had deposed that her mother-in-law PW-5 Gulabi Devi was treated as T.M.H., however, counsel points out that there is no medical papers or injury reports to substantiate the same. (vi) Regarding the evidence of PW-5 Gulabi Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the informant, learned counsel for the appellants points out that she is a doubtful witness and points out para-3 and para-14 of her evidence and submits that while in Para-3, PW-5 had deposed that the car was damaged and motorcycle was burnt and in para-14 she had deposed that she was unconscious, then, the question arises how she knew, the motorcycle was burnt. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even PW-5 Gulabi Devi had not identified Dharmu Minj, because in para-16 of her evidence she had stated that she came to know the name for the first time from people. (vii) Learned counsel for the appellants then pointed out from the evidence of PW-6 Mohan Lal, who is the Investigating Officer of this case and referred to para-8 of his evidence and submits that it has been stated by the Investigating Officer that the informant had told about Dharmu Ghasi pouring the petrol and Umesh Sinha setting a flame by matchstick, but, informant herself had not said similarly anywhere in her evidence. Learned counsel further refers to para-17 of his evidence and submitted that Investigating Officer had stated in his evidence that no seizure was made on the first day of occurrence and hence raises doubt in the case of the prosecution against the appellants. Finally, counsel says that the case is of the year 2004, hence more than 16-17 years have passed, and the appellants have already spent certain custodial periods of sentence and suffered hardships of trial and appeal, hence if convicted again, then sentence may be minimized. 13. (i) Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, the amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the criminal appeals, first and foremost submitted that in the FIR, informant had named only four appellants as an accused but, in the evidence, informant had included four other appellants as an accused and hence, dragged them in this case. 13. (i) Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, the amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the criminal appeals, first and foremost submitted that in the FIR, informant had named only four appellants as an accused but, in the evidence, informant had included four other appellants as an accused and hence, dragged them in this case. Amicus further says that no specific allegations against any persons have been made and allegations are all omnibus and general in nature. Further, no motive is attributed against any of the appellants and without any motive being attributed, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. (ii) Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the Investigating Officer had not found any sign of trespass in his investigation. The Investigating Officer himself did not saw any damage but only stated what was told to him by the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, there is dispute between the parties allegedly over the serious case of murder by the informant's husband and her nephew of one of the family members of the named accused in the fardbeyan. Therefore, there is every motive on behalf of the informant's side to raise a false case against the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that only one independent witness was examined by the prosecution, who is the neighbor of the informant namely PW-7 Arun Kumar Bhagat and he was declared hostile. Therefore, relying only on the evidence of interested or family witnesses was totally improper to convict the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the police had reached on the spot and had not made any seizure of any incriminating articles or items on the alleged day of occurrence. Further, there is no injury or medical reports to support the injury as stated in the FIR. Therefore, in the absence of seizure items or articles and injury reports, the entire case against the appellants gets vitiated. Learned counsel further submits that apparently the vehicle was released from the CJM court itself, but, was not been produced in the court during trial and this raises doubts and vitiates the case against the appellants. Therefore, in the absence of seizure items or articles and injury reports, the entire case against the appellants gets vitiated. Learned counsel further submits that apparently the vehicle was released from the CJM court itself, but, was not been produced in the court during trial and this raises doubts and vitiates the case against the appellants. (iii) Amicus curiae then points out the conviction of the appellants under section 427 IPC and submitted that the element of common intention is lacking because whatever allegedly took place, which is not anyway accepted, would have been done under the guidance of someone, but, it is not said under whose instigation the entire so-called assault was carried out by the crowd. It is simply indicated that certain people went in search of informant's husband and her nephew but the person responsible for instigating the crowd has not been stated in the fardbayan. Regarding conviction of the appellants under section 448 of IPC, learned counsel refers to Section 442 of IPC and points out that the prosecution is unable to say as to who had gone inside the house as from the evidences, it is not apparent and clear. Therefore, the offence of house trespass also cannot be made out against the appellants. Regarding conviction of the appellants under section 452 of IPC, an important element is ingredient of preparation before the house trespass however, it has not been indicated and nothing has been brought out in the evidence which would indicate that some activity had taken place to prove that preparation was made before the alleged house trespass. Finally, even the offence under section 435 IPC cannot be made out, because, it would relate to some articles or items but, in the evidence, it is revealed that the motorcycle was released from the court which would indicate that it was in a good condition; hence, no offence under Section 435 IPC is made out. On conclusion, amicus curiae has also reiterated that appellant No.2 has undergone more than 4 months, appellant No.7 has undergone more than 5 months and remaining other appellants have undergone more than 2/3 months of the imposed sentence. Hence, period undergone by these appellants shall be considered as sentence sufficiently served. 14. (i) Mr. Shishir Suman, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Hence, period undergone by these appellants shall be considered as sentence sufficiently served. 14. (i) Mr. Shishir Suman, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 133 of 2010 submitted that the name of the appellant-Kali Khatik is not mentioned in the FIR, rather there is one Kalik Ghasi is mentioned, so, there has been a misconstrued case against this appellant and he should not have been brought to trial anyway. Learned counsel further says that in her evidence, informant in para-22, had mentioned and indicated the names of the accused persons wherein the name of appellant Kali Khatik is not mentioned at all. Learned counsel, therefore, says that neither the name of Kali Khatik is mentioned in the FIR by the informant nor informant had mentioned in para-22 of her evidence. Learned counsel says that the name of Kali Khatik was dragged in this case even though Kali Khatik was not known to the informant, but, since his name was being called, his name was dragged into the case and on this basis only the case against the appellant-Kali Khatik would collapse. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that no test identification parade was conducted and only on the basis of suspicions name of this appellant was included. Further, learned counsel says that one Bhola Mian whose circumstances were similar to the appellant Kali Khatik, was acquitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel points out to para-24 of the impugned judgment, in reference to Bhola Mian and points out that there was no test identification parade recognition of Bhola Mian and, therefore, on similar grounds, the appellant Kali Khatik also needs to be acquitted. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu & Others versus The State of Bihar reported in (2002) 7 SCC 295 and its para-6 reads herein "6. It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is, what is its probative value? It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is, what is its probative value? Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character; unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence..." (iii) Finally, learned counsel has submitted that this particular appellant was only 27 years old at the time of pronouncement of judgment, which would mean that at the time of the alleged offence in the year 2004, he would have been around 23 or 24 years old only, therefore, appellant was a very young man and he has spent about three months four days in custody and, hence, he has already been sufficiently punished. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:- 15. (i) Mrs. Niki Sinha, the learned counsel for the State has first and foremost addressed the sections of conviction involved and pointed out that one of the convictions of the appellants has been done under Section 427 IPC which is mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. Learned counsel has said that section 427 needs to be read along with Section 425 IPC wherein mischief has been defined and one of the ingredients is that there must be intent to cause or there must be knowledge that it is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person and then causes the destruction of any property. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that all the prosecution witnesses and the evidences taken together indicates that the appellants herein along with a large crowd of persons which has also been indicated by the prosecution witnesses as numbering about 200 persons had come armed with weapons and they had damaged a motor-cycle and car and the Investigating Officer had also supported the occurrence of such incidents in his evidence. Therefore, the resultant damage that has taken place indicates that the appellants definitely had intention and knowledge that the destruction would be caused and, therefore, Section 427 IPC is surely made out against the appellants. (ii) Learned APP further submits that the conviction has also been under Section 448 IPC which is punishment for house trespass which states that whoever commits house trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Learned counsel pointed out that Section 448 IPC needs to be read along with Section 441 IPC which is criminal trespass and therein it is said that there must be intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. Learned counsel, therefore, says that all the appellants herein had committed offence under Section 448 IPC and they had trespassed into the house of the informant and they had damaged the motor cycle and the car and motor cycle was amply burnt out as has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as in the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel also says that from the evidences it is also clear that two of the inmates of the house were also insulted or intimidated, therefore, the conviction under Section 448 IPC is fully justified. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that conviction of the appellants is also under section 452 IPC which is house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting for any person or for wrongful restraining any person and Counsel says that there is evidence to the extent that two of the ladies of the house, that is, the PW-4 informant as well as informant's mother-in-law or PW-5 were assaulted or rough-tough and, therefore, there was hurt to some extent. The motive for preparation of assault was present as there was murder of a person from the appellant side, for which, they held informant's husband Madan Yadav and informant's nephew Sikander responsible for murder and therefore, they commit hurt, assault or wrongful restraint and it was only due to the absence of Madan Yadav and Sikander that these two persons were not hurt or assaulted, but anyway two ladies mentioned herein were assaulted to some extent, therefore, the conviction under section 452 IPC is also made out. Learned counsel further submitted that appellants have been convicted under section 435 IPC also and points out that section 435 IPC which reads mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees. Learned counsel for the State submits that it has come in the evidence of PW-4 informant and PW-5 that motorcycle was burnt and car was damaged, therefore, the offence under Section 435 IPC read with section 149 IPC is surely made out. Counsel also submits that Section 435 IPC can be fully read along with Section 149 IPC because there was an unlawful assembly of not only these appellants but it has also been indicated by the PW-4 informant that there was a large crowd of mischievous ill-intention persons extending even to the extent of about 200 persons and they were also armed with sword as has been indicated in the evidence of the prosecution witness. Finally, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the offence under Section 148 IPC is also made out because the unlawful assembly was also armed with dangerous weapons and they intended to cause hurt and damage to the property of the informant. (iv) Learned counsel for the State further submitted that even from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the convictions are fully made out as PW-1 Lalita Devi, in her evidence had indicated the role of appellants Dharmu Minj and Kali Khatik. PW-1 had stated that Kali Khatik was carrying matchstick and Dharu Minz was carrying petrol and the motorcycle was burnt. PW-1 also deposed that appellant Fenta had restrained them and threatened them if they will go they will also be burnt. PW-1 had stated that Kali Khatik was carrying matchstick and Dharu Minz was carrying petrol and the motorcycle was burnt. PW-1 also deposed that appellant Fenta had restrained them and threatened them if they will go they will also be burnt. Learned APP has then taken this Court to the evidence of PW-2 Malti Devi and pointed out that she had identified Dharmu Minj and Pappu Kharwa and she had deposed about the damage done to the white car. Learned counsel has then referred the evidence of PW-3, who is one Subhash Chandra Yadav and pointed out that he is a seizure-list witness and an independent witness. Counsel submits that PW-3, in para-2 of his evidence had deposed that the police had seized burnt motorcycle. (v) Learned APP has then pointed out the evidence of the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav and submitted that informant had taken the names and identified the appellants, namely, Fenta Sinha, Umesh Sinha, Jitu Karwa, Pradeep Karwa, Dharmu Minj, Pappu Kharwa and Kali Khatik. The informant had also deposed that accused persons had caught hold of her hair and she was assaulted with sword, but, she bent down and saved herself. Further, informant had deposed about the damaged car and her mother-in-law had also been assaulted. Informant was the witness to the offences committed by the appellants in her new house or the second place of occurrence as was revealed by her in para -13 of her deposition wherein informant had stated that she went behind the crowd to the second place of occurrence. Therefore, counsel says that informant was able to see what transpired by the actions of the appellants and the unlawful crowd at the second place of occurrence. Counsel for the State has then referred to the evidence of PW-5, who is Gulabi Devi or the mother-in-law of informant and pointed out that she in her deposition has taken the names of appellants Dharmu Minj and Fenta Sinha and had identified Pappu, Pradeep and Jitu Karwa. Learned counsel also submits that PW-5 had also deposed that there was enmity between her son and accused persons and due to this reason accused persons had committed the offence. Learned counsel also submits that PW-5 had also deposed that there was enmity between her son and accused persons and due to this reason accused persons had committed the offence. Finally, learned counsel referred to the evidence of PW-6, who is the Investigating Officer of the case and points out that Investigating Officer had investigated the places of occurrence and Investigating Officer had indicated the damaged glass, gate, bonnet etc. of white car. Investigating Officer had also recorded the statement of witnesses and, therefore, even from the evidence of the Investigating Officer the case against the appellants or surviving appellants are fully made out. FINDINGS 16. I have heard both the learned counsels appearing in both theses appeals, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the amicus. I find that background of the dispute that has been stated in the fardbayan of the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav is that informant 's husband namely Madan Yadav and informant's nephew Sikandar Yadav had dispute with the owner of Hari Krishna Bus namely Shankar Yadav for the agency of Chaibasa Bus stand. But, this was only the partial fact portrayed by the informant in the fardbeyan or in her FIR. On going through the evidence of PW-1 Lalita Devi, who is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the informant, I find that PW-1 in para-7 of her evidence had deposed that on the same day of occurrence brother of one Lakhan Tiwari was murdered and in the murder case name of the informant's husband Madan Yadav and informant's nephew Sikandar Yadav had figured. Here, it is pertinent to note that Lakhan Tiwari was one of the name accused in the FIR. PW-4 informant had also in her examination-in-chief had deposed that crowd was searching for Madan Yadav and Sikandar Yaday. Hence, from the deposition of PW-1 and PW-4 and also the fardbayan, it appears that crowd had gone to the house of the informant in search of said Madan Yadav and Sikandar, as there was allegation of murder on both of them. 17. Firstly, on going through the fardbeyan, I find that informant PW-4 in her fardbeyan had initially named seven accused person namely Dharmu Minj (appellant no. 6), Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi (appellant no. 17. Firstly, on going through the fardbeyan, I find that informant PW-4 in her fardbeyan had initially named seven accused person namely Dharmu Minj (appellant no. 6), Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi (appellant no. 4), Sikandar Sao @ Sikandar @ Sikandar Halwai @ Siku (appellant no.1, appeal abated) of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) 121 of 2010 and appellant Kali Khatik of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 133 of 2010 and apart from this, informant had named Bhola Ghasi, Chunnu, Karwa and Lakhan Tiwari, in her fardbayan, But, during the trial, there was development in the deposition of informant and informant had for the first time during the trial disclosed the name of Fenta Sinha (appellant no. 2), Umesh Sinha (appellant) no.3), Pradeep Mehra @ Pradeep Karwa (appellant no.5) and Pappu Kharwa (appellant no.7). Further, on going through para-10 of the cross-examination of the informant, I find that defence counsel, during the trial, had specifically cross-examined the informant about the participation of aforesaid appellants i.e. Fenta Sinha (appellant no.2), Umesh Sinha (appellant no.3) Pradeep Mehra @ Pradeep Karwa (appellant no.5) and Pappu Kharwa (appellant no.7) in the alleged incident, wherein, informant had deposed that, she had named them in her statement, but on going through the fardbayan of the informant, I could not find the name of Fenta Sinha (appellant no.2), Umesh Sinha (appellant no.3), Pradeep Mehra @ Pradeep Karwa (appellant no.5) and Pappu Kharwa (appellant no.7) in the fardbeyan of the informant. Further, in para-23 of her cross-examination, informant had specifically deposed that police did not hold the TIP and PW-5, who is the mother-in-law of the informant, had also in para-15 of her evidence had deposed that police did not call her for the TIP, whereas, both PW-4 informant and PW-5 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. Hence, Fenta Sinha (appellant no.2), Umesh Sinha (appellant no.3), Pradeep Mehra @ Pradeep Karwa (appellant no.5) and Pappu Kharwa (appellant no.7) are acquitted of all the charges. 18. Lastly, only the guilt of the three remaining appellants i.e. appellant no.4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi, appellant no.6 Dharmu Minj of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 121 of 2010 and appellant Kali Khatik of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 133 of 2010 for their convictions are to be decided. 18. Lastly, only the guilt of the three remaining appellants i.e. appellant no.4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi, appellant no.6 Dharmu Minj of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 121 of 2010 and appellant Kali Khatik of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 133 of 2010 for their convictions are to be decided. First of all coming to the identification of all these three appellants, I find that all these three appellants were named by the informant in her fardbeyan to be present in the crowd and during the trial also, informant had identified all these three appellants in the court and more specifically informant had identified these appellants in para-9 of her deposition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Kali Khatik, has submitted that appellant Kali Khatik is not named in the fardbeyan rather one Kali Ghasi is mentioned in the fardbeyan and the appellant Kali Khatik was wrongly dragged in this case. This issue was also raised by the appellant Kali Khatik during the trial. But, in view of specific identification of the appellant Kali Khatik by the informant at para-9 of her deposition, in the court during the trial, this defense raised by the appellant's counsel would not help the appellant. 19. From the fardbeyan and deposition of the informant PW-4, I find that in this case there are two places of occurrence, one at the old house of the informant, where informant was residing with her family members and another is the new house of the informant, which was locked. Here, it is pertinent to note that firstly, at the informant's old house crowd had assembled and thereafter, crowd had gone to the second place of occurrence i.e. the informant's new house. The Investigating Officer PW-6 had also inspected both places of occurrence and had stated that the distance between the old house and the new house of the informant is about 700 yards. 20. (i). Appellants have been convicted under sections 452/ 448/ 427 and 435/149 of IPC and section 148 of IPC. From the record, I find that both these appeals arises out of two Session cases, S.T. no.-79 of 2005 and S.T. no. 237 of 2005 and total ten accused persons including the appellants herein were charged in both these Sessions cases. Charged accused Chunnu Karwa of S.T. no. 79 of 2005 had died during the trial and charged accused Bhola Miya of S.T. Case no. 237 of 2005 and total ten accused persons including the appellants herein were charged in both these Sessions cases. Charged accused Chunnu Karwa of S.T. no. 79 of 2005 had died during the trial and charged accused Bhola Miya of S.T. Case no. 237 of 2005 was acquitted of the charges by the learned trial court. During pendency of these appeals appellant no.1 Sikandar Sao alias Sikandar @ Sikandar Halwai @ Siku had died and his appeal is thus abated and four of the appellants have been acquitted of the charges, as discussed in preceding paragraphs. Hence, overall result is that only three appellants remain in both these appeals and therefore, in the facts and circumstances, these three remaining appellants cannot be convicted under sections 148/149 of IPC. (ii). Regarding conviction of the remaining appellants i.e. appellant no. 4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi, appellant no.6 Dharmu Minj and Kali Khatik under sections 448 and 452 of IPC, I find from the fardbayan and deposition of the informant that several persons including these appellants had entered into the first place of occurrence i.e. at the informant's old house, in search of informant's husband Madan Yadav and the informant's nephew Sikandar Yaday. Informant at para-4 of her deposition had also stated that appellants had entered inside the house and had searched for her husband and nephew. PW-1, who is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the informant had also deposed that accused persons armed with sword and ballam had opened the gate and searched for Sikandar Yadav and Madan Yaday. Further, PW-2, who is neighbour of the informant, had also deposed that many persons armed with sword, spade and stick had come to the house of the informant in search of Madan Yadav and Sikandar Yadav and had broken the fencing of the informant's house. Hence, from the depositions of PW-4 informant, PW-1 and PW-2, I come to the conclusion that a crowd including these three appellants had entered into the residential house of the informant with intent to commit offence and hence, committed criminal trespass and subsequently by entering into the dwelling house of the informant also committed the offence of house-trespass and therefore, charge under section 448 of IPC against the appellants is proved. But, so far as charge under section 452 of IPC is concerned, I find from the evidence of PW-1 that on the same day of occurrence, brother of one of the named accused in the FIR namely Lakhan Tiwari, was murdered and in the murder name of informant's husband Madan Yadav and informant's nephew Sikandar Yadav had figured. Hence, these appellants being a member of crowd had assembled at the informant's residential house in search of informant's husband namely Madan Yadav and nephew Sikandar Yaday. PW-4 informant had also deposed to this effect in her evidence. Hence, I come to the conclusion that offence of house trespass was committed, but, there was no preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint and therefore, charge under section 452 of the IPC is not proved against these appellants. (iii). Further, regarding conviction of the appellants under sections 427 and 435 of IPC, I find from the fardbayan as well as deposition of the informant that appellants had damaged the Ambassador car bearing no. BPT-66 parked outside the residential house of the informant i.e. at the first place of occurrence. Thereafter, crowd had gone to the second place of occurrence i.e. at the new house of the informant and there lock of the house was broke opened and glasses of the house were broken and motor cycle bearing no. JH-06A-3866 was burnt. PW-6 Investigating Officer of the case had also deposed in para-6 of his evidence that a white coloured Ambassador Car bearing no. BPT-66 was found in a damaged condition. Investigating Officer also deposed that gate, bonnet and glass of the car was found broken. Further, Investigating Officer in para-8 of his deposition had stated that at the second place of occurrence, he found lock and attached door panel was broken. Investigating Officer had proved the seizure list of burnt motor-cycle, which was admitted without objection and marked as Ext.-5. PW-3 is seizure list witness, who is also the neighbour of the informant and he had proved his signature on the seizure list of burnt motor cycle which was admitted without objection and marked as Ext.-1. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghashi, Dharmu Minj and Kali Khatik under sections 427 and 435 of IPC. 21. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghashi, Dharmu Minj and Kali Khatik under sections 427 and 435 of IPC. 21. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 27.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case Nos. 79 of 2005 and 237 of 2005, so far, as it concerned to appellants Fenta Sinha (appellant no.2), Umesh Sinha (appellant no.3), Pradeep Mehra @ Pradeep Karwa (appellant no.5) and Pappu Kharwa (appellant no.7) are set-aside and all these four appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. So, far as conviction of the remaining appellants, appellant no.4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi, appellant no.6 Dharmu Minj of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 121 of 2010 and appellant Kali Khatik of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 133 of 2010 are concerned, they are acquitted of the charges under sections 452/149 and 148 of IPC but, they are convicted under sections 448/34, 427/34 and 435/34 of IPC. 22. I have noted the prayers for mitigating sentences in case convictions are upheld and noted the reasons given. It is pointed out and from the records it is found that appellant No.4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi has spent about 3 months 3 days in custody so far, appellant No.6 Dharmu Minj has undergone 2 months 17 days and appellant Kali Khatik has undergone 3 months 4 days. Learned trial court had imposed sentences of six months each for the convictions of the appellants under Sections 435 and 427 of IPC and sentences of three months for the conviction of the appellants under Section 448 of IPC and these sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period undergone was directed to be set-off and hence, maximum sentence was of six months imposed on the appellants by the learned trial court. Therefore, in the light of modified convictions as indicated, and periods already spent and age of case and mitigating circumstances pleaded, this Court thinks it appropriate that at this stage no further custodial sentence is required. However, earlier fine of Rs. 500/- each imposed by the learned court below is set-aside and now it is being converted into a compensatory amount for the damage caused to property and enhanced as indicated below. However, earlier fine of Rs. 500/- each imposed by the learned court below is set-aside and now it is being converted into a compensatory amount for the damage caused to property and enhanced as indicated below. Now, the appellant No.4 Jitu Karwa @ Jitu Ghasi, appellant No.6 Dharmu Minj in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 121 of 2010 and the appellant Kali Khatik in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 133 of 2010 are all imposed and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- each to the informant PW-4 Bela Yadav within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be taken into custody for three months SI in default thereof. The compensation amount, may be deposited in the concerned court below. Appellants to be discharged of liabilities of their bail bonds after payment of the compensation amount. 23. Hence, both these appeals, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 121 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 133 of 2010 are partly allowed.