The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper and reliable means of identification in criminal cases, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

1. These two appeals were taken up for analogous hearing because they arise out of the same judgment passed by Shri G. S. Chaube, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, dated 12-5-1989 in Sessions Trial No. 47/35 of 1986. In Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1989, appellants-Jai Ram Ahir alias Jai Ram Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Shri Bhagwan Dusadh were convicted under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. In Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1989, appellant-Gudari Chamar was convicted under S. 395, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Along with the aforesaid appellants, some other persons were also facing trial who were, however, acquitted.

2. The prosecution case, as recorded in the fardbeyan of Mundrika Singh, was to the effect that in the night betwixt 12th/13th April, 1986 at about 1 a.m. he was sleeping in his cottage when he heard the alarm of dacoit dacoit. Subsequently he saw that some dacoits were entering into his house after scaling over the roof of his tiled house. The dacoits opened the main exit door of the house and 8-10 dacoits made entry into the inner portion of the house after scaring female inmates. The dacoits carried away several articles of the house including boxes containing ornaments, clothes etc. The informant and other male members of his family could not reach their main residential house but they had occasion to observe the dacoits from the cottage in which they were sleeping. The dacoits while escaping after committing dacoity also indulged in indiscriminate firing causing injuries to a neighbour Kashinath Singh. Altogether, articles worth Rs. 11000.00 were carried away by the dacoits.

3. The accused-appellants took this defence that they had been falsely implicated and they were paraded before the witnesses much before the T.I. parade was held. The learned trial Judge on the basis of almost 12 witnesses found the accused-appellants guilty and sentenced them, as stated above. It is, however, noted that along with the accused-appellants, there were several other persons who were facing trial before the lower Court, but they were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. It is further to be noticed that appellant-Mahendra Yadav and Ramlal Dusadh were charged under S. 412, I.P.C. besides under S. 395, I.P.C. The learned trial Judge acquitted appellant-Mahendra Yadav and Ramlal Dusadh (not the appellant) from the charge of S. 412, I.P.C. because he held that test identification of articles recovered was totally farce. So the appellants before this Court stand convicted only under S. 395, I.P.C. At this stage, it is further to be recorded that earlier one Gudari Chamar was arrested on a tip off and upon his confessional statement, other appellants were arrested and certain other articles were also recovered from their house.

4. Since the appellants have been acquitted under S. 412, I.P.C., I do not think it necessary to examine evidence with respect to this charge. So the charge under S. 395, I.P.C. has to be substantiated from the evidence on record. Out of the P.Ws. examined, P.W. 1 was tendered. P.W. 2 Hira Lal Ram is a witness of the seizure of articles and it has been already stated above that the appellants have been acquitted of the charge under S. 412, I.P.C. P.W. 4 is another seizure list witness whose evidence is insignificant because of acquittal of the appellantsfrom the charge under S. 412, I.P.C. P.W. 3 was tendered. P.W. 5 was also tendered, P.W. 6 is Prabhawati Devi, P.W. 7 is Suka Devi. These lady inmates are so-called eye-witnesses with respect to the dacoity in the house. P.W. 8 is another eye-witness. P.W. 9 Mundrika Singh is the informant himself. P.W. 10 is T.I. Magistrate, P.W. 11 is I.O. P.W. 12 is B.D.O. who held T.I. of the articles.

5. I find from the evidence that the learned Judge held the accused-appellants guilty on the evidence that they were identified by witnesses