1. The five appellants named above have been convicted under Sec.395 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.

2. The prosecution case is that in the night of 12th and 13th Jan. 1977, informant Sukhdeo Singh (P.W. 9) was sleeping in the Gohal of Bacha Singh, which was adjacent west to his house. His brother Dhanpat Singh (P.W. 4) was sleeping in the Dalan of his house and his father was sleeping in his own Gohal. At about 11 P.M. the informant heard the cries of his brother and father, namely, Dhanpat Singh and Ram Prasad Singh, and then he noticed flash of torches at his house. Thereupon, he rushed to his own house and as soon as he reached there he saw 15 or 20 dacoits. On seeing him some of the dacoits pounced upon him, whereupon he wanted to flee away, but one of the dacoits, namely, Sheo Narain Barahi (since dead) inflicted a Farsa blow on his left shoulder. At about that time the persons of his own village as also of the neighbouring villages reached there on hearing the alarm and eventually there was an encounter between the dacoits on the one side and the persons assembled on the other. In course of this encounter two dacoits sustained injuries out of whom one, namely, Jhojhan Yadav died at the spot as a result of the injuries sustained by him, but the other injured dacoit managed to flee away. Some of the villagers also sustained injuries including the brother of the informant, namely, P.W. 4. Ultimately, the dacoits left the place after snatching two silver Hasuli and four Pahuchis. They also carried away one tin of Ghee. The total value of the articles carried away by them was Rs. 974/-.

3. On the following day the informant went to Marona Police camp where his fardbeyan was recorded by p.W. 10 at 10 A.M. Eventually, a case was registered on the basis of this fardbeyan. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the case against these appellants and some others, who were put on trial in due course. Two of the accused persons, however, died before the conclusion of the trial and two were acquitted by the trial court, but six accused persons were convicted, out of whom, five have preferred this appeal.

4. The defence of the appellants was that they were falsely implicated on account of some land dispute.

5. So far as the factum of occurrence is concerned, there is sufficient material on the record to prove the same. The witnesses who have deposed on this point are P.W. 1 Masharu Singh, P.W. 2 Ram Bilash Rai, P.W. 3 Laxmi Prasad Singh P.W. 4 Dhanpat Singh and P.W. 9 Sukhdeo Singh, who are all eye witnesses to the occurrence. Indeed, the factum of occurrence finds sufficient corroboration from the fact that the dead body of Jhojhan Yadav, who is of another village, was found at the door of the informant even by the investigating officer on the following day of the occurrence. The accused persons have got no explanation as to how his dead body was found there that night.-The evidence of Dr. Jageshwar Lal (P.W. 6) who held the post-mortem on his dead body shows that he had found a number of injuries on his person which caused his death. The investigating officer, who visited the place of occurrence on the following day of the occurrence, had also found the door planks of the house of the informant broken and some of the articles lying scattered. The investigating officer (P.W. 10) had also found sword and arrows etc. at the place of occurrence which are said to have been used in the encounter.

6. As said above, P.W. 9 had sustained Farsa injury in course of the occurrence. Besides him, P.Ws. 1 and 4 have also sustained injuries. It is unfortunate that the doctor who had examined their injuries has not been examined in the case and their injury reports have been simply taken in evidence under S. 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apparently, these injury reports cannot be used by the prosecution for proving the injuries on the injured when the doc