The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, especially regarding the source of identification and the genuineness of the evidence presented.

Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 20-04-2001 and order of sentence dated 24-04-2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabua, in Sessions Trial No. 23/170 of 1991/2000 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six years.

3. In brief the fact which lies to file this Cr. Appeal is that PW 1 namely. Lallan Singh gave his fardbeyan to Officer-in-charge of Bhabua Police Station on 11-11-1988 at his home to this effect that in the night of 12-09-1988 while he along with his other family members was sleeping in his house 8-9 dacoits entered into his house and committed dacoity. He further stated that he identified the appellants in the light of torch flashed by the dacoits while they along with other dacoits were decamping along with looted booty.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan Bhabua P.S. Case No. 318 of 1988 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and formal FIR was drawn up against the appellants and 6-7 unknown persons.

5. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and one accused Parikha Bind for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way.

6. The appellants along with co-accused, Parikha Bind were put on trial and they were jointly charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code to which, they denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses and got exhibited signature of PW 1 as Ext.-1 formal FIR as Ext.-2 and fardbeyan as Ext. 3.

8. The statements of appellants and other accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they reiterated their innocence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence but from perusal of statement of appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC as well as trends of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it appears that the appellants denied their involvement in the alleged dacoity.

9. Learned trial Court having analyzed the prosecution evidence and having relied upon testimony of PW 1, PW 2 & PW 3, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner, as stated above whereas: co-accused. Pareekha Bind was acquitted of the charge.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that according to prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 12-09-1988 but fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 11-11-1988 i.e. near about after two months of the alleged occurrence and no plausible and sufficient explanation was given by the prosecution for the aforesaid delay in lodging the first information report. He further submitted that the prosecution could not succeed to establish the source of identification. Continuing his submission he submitted that PW 1 has stated in his fardbeyan that he identified the appellants in the light of torch flashed by the dacoits while they along with other dacoits were decamping along with looted booty but PW 1 developed the story and in course of trial stated that he identified the appellants in the light of Lantern as well as in the light of torch flashed by the dacoits. He further submitted that the I.O. did not seize any lantern nor the said lantern was produced before the I.O. and therefore it is hard to believe that at the time of alleged dacoity any lantern was burning in the house of the PW 1. He further submitted that so far as identification of the appellants in the light of torch flashed by the dacoits is