The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and specific evidence of identification in criminal cases, and the principle of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Gopal Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. Two appeals have been heard together and disposed of by common order as both the appeals have arises out of same judgment.

3. The appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

4. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant in the Fardbeyan that the informant Ram Kumar Yadav was sleeping in the eastern room on wooden box. By the side of the wooden box his mother, sister, wife and Bhabhi were sleeping. At about 12 in the mid night he got up on cry of his father about the dacoity, when he get up from sleep then three persons came to him and cover his face and started assaulting by dagger. He anyhow manage to get off the clothes from his mouth. He saw there co-villagers Mishri Yadav, Ram Sunder Yadav and Mahandra and Maheshwar Das, he got injury on his left hand rest on abdomen. He has further stated lantern was burning in the room and they also got torch. There was 10-12 persons in the courtyard. They were litting torch and searching his family members in the room and assaulted them. The further allegation is that three persons assaulted him and get him down from the box and broke open the box and looted away silver as well as golden jewelleries. Thereafter three came out and assaulted his father, mother, sister and brother Ram Kripal Yadav. It has further been alleged on hulla by himself and his family members several people of the village came there when the villagers came all the dacoits flee away to the north in the deep orchard. The further case of prosecution in Fardbeyan that the motive for occurrence is land dispute with Mishri Yadav with his family members since last one and half years. They have claimed 5 and half bighas of land of the informant and in this connection there are several cases going on between them. It is further alleged that he has assaulted him and his family members several times and in this regard case has also been lodged and hence the present occurrence has been done by them due to enmity.

5. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged. During the investigation police apprehended some suspect and conducted T.I.P. in which one dacoit was identified by Ram Kripal Yadav, Budur Yadav and Ram Kumar Yadav and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet. On the charge sheet cognizane taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. And after commitment charge was framed under Section 395 I.P.C. and trial proceeded. During trial thirteen witnesses were examined. P.W. 3 and 11 are seizure list witness, P.W. 1 and 2 are brother of the informant, P.W. 5 is mother, P.W. 6 is sister, P.W. 7 is Bhabhi, P.W. 8 is wife, P.W. 11 is sharu of the informant, P.W. 9 is the informant himself, P.W. 10, is the doctor, P.W. 12 is I.O. and P.W. 13 is formal witness. P.W. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 supported the prosecution case about the factum of dacoity. P.W. 1, 5 and 9 claimed to identify the accused Mishri Yadav, Ram Sunder Yadav and Maheshwar Yadav during the dacoity. P.W. 2, 4 and 9 claimed to identify accused-appellant Ram Sewak Mukhiya in court during evidence and T.I.P.

6. The defence of the accused persons that they are co- villagers. There was prior enmity with the prosecution party and have falsely been implicated due to enmity. The further defence of the appellant Ram Sewak Mukhiya that he is co-villager has got land in the village. He had transferred his land to his uncle Achhya Lal causing annoyance to Kari Yadav, the brother of Budur Yadav (P.W.4) the father of the informant (P.W.9). The land of Kari Yadav is adjoining the said land of appellant Ram Sewak Mukhiya. D.W. 1 the uncle of the appellant Ram Sewak Mukhiya who is resident of same village has deposed that appellant is his nephew and given genealogy showing the appellant to be son of the brother of the comm