Judgment

Nanavati, J.-These appeals by the State are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 564, 566 and 533 of 1981. The five respondents, along with one Bharat Singh, were tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC, in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1979/11 of 1990. Accused Bharat Singh was acquitted but respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were convicted under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. It was alleged against the accused that on 13.8.1978 at about 1.00 P.M. they, along with 15 to 20 other persons, under the leadership of Kailash Mahto, went to the house of Bilat Sah (PW-18) of village Pakaria and committed dacoity. In order to commit dacoity they dragged Bilat Sah (PW-18) and his son Ramchandra Sah (PW-19), pushed them into a room and locked them inside. On hearing their shouts many people rushed to that place and protested against the high handedness of the dacoits as three of them were the residents of the same village and were known to them. Soon after the dacoits left that place, the vil­lage people freed Bilat Sah and Ramchandra Sah and then started chas­ing the dacoits. When Rajdeo Rai, who was heading the chasers, gave a lathi blow to one of the dacoits, accused Ram Kailash Mahto and Na­geshwar Suri fired shots as a result of which Rajdeo Rai received injuries on his chest and abdomen and died there and then. In spite of that, the villagers continued the chase and caught one dacoit, who gave out his name as Surendra Singh and stated that he was of village Singharia. The villagers of Pakaria were joined by people of the adjoining villages and they all continued the chase. During the scuf­fles between the dacoits and the village people as many as ten dacoits lost their lives and some villagers also received injuries. The vil­lage people returned to the village with Surendra Singh in the evening. At about 8.00 P.M., Sub-Inspector, Ram Nath Yadav (PW-12), who was in-charge of Sonbara Police Station received information that firing had taken place in village Pakaria and that some serious inci­dents had also taken place. He left for that village and reached there at about 8.30 P.M. He recorded the complaint of Ramchandra Sah (PW-19) and sent it to the police station for registering an offence. During the investigation the six accused could be identified and were arrest­ed. They were then put up for trial.

3. The trial Court relying mainly upon the evidence of PWs-1, 6, 11, 13, 18 and 19 and the extra judicial confession made by Surendra Singh (A-1) held that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that A-1 and A-3 to A-6 had taken part in committing the dacoity and, there­fore, were guilty under Section 396 IPC. A-2 was given benefit of doubt as the evidence regarding his identification was not satisfacto­ry.

4. The High Court held that the prosecution evidence as regards iden­tification of A-1 was not consistent and it was doubtful that he was really caught by the village people and brought to the village in the evening of 13.8.1978 and that he made an extra judicial confession before the Mukhia of the village (PW-13). It also held that the extra judicial confession (Exh.-5) was not reliable in view of the correc­tions made therein. The High Court also held that it was doubtful if Ram Kewal Shah (A-3) of village Pakaria was one of the dacoits as he was described in the extra judicial confession as a person from village Singharia. It also held that A-4 and A-5 were probably falsely involved at the instance of Chandreshwar Thakur whose relations with A-4 and A-5 were inimical. It also held that A-6 had no concern with accused Kailash Mahto and in all probability he was also involved falsely at the instance of Chandreshwar Thakur.

5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving the prosecution witness