The admissibility and reliability of confessional statements, the requirement for substantial evidence to establish guilt, and the importance of identification and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime.

S.N.Pathak, J.

1. All the accused appellants in all the three criminal appeals referred to above were convicted under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, except Md. Khalil Mian, who was convicted under Sec. 412, IPC besides Sec. 395, IPC. All of them were sentenced to go RI for ten years under Sec. 395, IPC and Khalil Mian was sentenced to go RI for ten years under Sec. 412, IPC. All the accused-appellants were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each and in default to undergo SI for sixmonths.

2. The case of the prosecution was that in between the night of 18th 19th October, 1998, the informant. Narmadeshwar Pandey (PW 2) was travelling by train from Narkatiyaganj to Sikata and when the train reached near Harjadawa railway outer signal some dacoits started looting the passengers who were relieved of their personal belongings including clothes. Thereafter these, dacoits alighted from the train at the outer signal and fled away. The informant went home and subsequently, learnt that one person namely. Munna, was admitted in Mainatar Hospital. Informant went there and learnt from Munna that he along with seven others had committed loot and plunder in the concerned train on the concerned night. Subsequently. Police arrested Munna and on his confessional statement arrested other accused persons including Haider and on the confessional statement of Haider, the house of Khalil was raided and from the house of Khalil looted articles were recovered for which seizure list was prepared. Thereafter the accused-appellants were put on trial which ended in their conviction and sentence as stated above.

3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of the evidence of eight witnesses examined in the case. PW 1 was the person who had seen the accused Munna lying in a field in injured condition. He carried Munna to hospital in the company of some other villagers namely. Prabhu Kushwaha. Bhushan Baitha and Bandhu Mahto. Munna told the persons that when the train stopped at the railway platform, some criminals entered into the compartment and looted the passengers and this Munna was the victim of the loot and he was pushed out from the train, which caused him alleged injury. This witness denied the allegation that Munna had confessed his guilt and named his accomplices. PW 2 was informant himself. He spoke about the alleged dacoity. He further said that he went to hospital and Munna told him that he alongwith others had committed the alleged occurrence, but in cross-examination, this witness admitted that after the occurrence, he had gone to Mainatar Hospital and a man who was in the hospital had disclosed the names of his accomplices but who gave the information to this witness, he did not remember. That means that this witness was informed about the confessional statement of Munna by some other person. So he denied the confessional statement of Munna in his presence.

4. PW 3 was another passenger in the concerned train who was also subjected to alleged loot and plunder but this witness failed to identify any of the accused in dock. This witness has also been declared hostile and he had not told the police that he had identified Munila in the hospital and the latter had confessed his guilt in his presence and had named his accomplices. PW 4 denied to have seen the occurrence and he was also declared hostile. PW 5 is seizure list witness. He denied any seizure from the house of Khalil in his presence although he admitted his signature of the seizure list (exhibit 1/2). He also said that the police obtained his signature on the plain paper. PW 6 was another seizure list witness who also denied any seizure in his presence. However, he admitted his signature on the seizure list. In cross-examination by the prosecution, although he earlier denied that he put his signature on the seizure list, in cross-examination by the accused, this witness said that he signed on the seizure list at the instance of the