The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the identification of the accused and the recovered articles beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases.

Khem Chand Sharma, J.-Appellants Pappu and Chopya have filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC challenging the judgment and order dated 210.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof , each to further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 30.1.2001 at 6.30 AM, PW. 1 Girraj Kishore lodged a written report, Exhibit- P. 1 at Police Station, Devli alleging therein that on 29.1.2001, under the orders of District Collector, Sawaimadhopur, he along with some officials were carrying various articles in Truck No. RCB 2004 for relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujrat. While on way near Devli, the tyre of the truck got punctured at about 4.30 AM, one person came there and demanded ‘bin’ from driver of the truck, but he refused to give bin. In the mean-time, 12-13 persons encircled them and attacked on them and started beating them. It was further alleged that the miscreants decamped with the articles looted from the complainant, Meghraj Katol, Hanuman Prasad Jangid and Sukhji, driver. On the above written report, police registered a case vide FIR, Exhibit-P-2 for offence under Sections 395 and 323 IPC and proceeded with the investigation.

3. Inthe course of investigation, police prepared site plan, Exhibit-P3, got the injured medically examined and collected injury reports Exhibit-P-4, P.14 and P.15 arrested the accused appellants Chopya and Pappu vide arrest memos Exhibit-P-8 and P.9, respectively, got conducted identification of the accused and effected recoveries of two wrist watches, purse and Rs. 3000/-on the information of the accused appellants Exhibit-P 16 and P.17 and prepared recovery memos Exhibit-P-12 and P.13.

4. On completion of usual investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

5. Thelearned trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the Counsel and considering the evidence and material available before it, framed charges against the appellants under Sections 395 and 323 IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC The accused did not examine any witness in their defence.

6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the prosecution case, as alleged, proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. Hence the present appeal.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record.

8. In order to judge the correctness of the findings of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court, I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence and the material available on record.

9. In the case of dacoity or robbery, the prosecution is obliged to prove beyond doubt the identification of the person accused of committing such offence. Secondly, it is required to establish the recoveries of the looted property by reliable and cogent evidence. The trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the accused appellants were correctly identified by the prosecution witnesses, including the eye witnesses of the incident as the persons involved in commission of dacoity. It has also concluded that the recovery of looted property stands established.

10. At the very out set, it may be mentioned that witnesses Sukhji, Hanuman Prasad and Jahid who were victims and had witnessed