The main legal point established in the judgment is the unreliability of the evidence of identification and the importance of corroborating evidence in criminal cases.

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE all the three above titled appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 25/2/1984 in sessions case No. 13/81, they are being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) ON 17-6-1980, PW 3 Babulal lodged a written report, Ex. P6 at Police station, Bassi alleging therein that on the previous night at about 8-9 PM, 8-10 dacoits wearing khakhi dresses, duly armed with guns enters his house and gave beating to PW 1 Damodar. They broke open the locks of the shops and opened fire, the pellets of which hit one pokhar Balai of village Badawa. It was alleged that the dacoits broke open the lock of his room and after breaking iron safe looted gold and silver ornaments and he would submit the list of looted property. Lastly it was alleged that dacoits also broke opened the lock of the room of damodar and took away watch etc.

( 3 ) ON the basis of aforesaid written report, the Police registered a case for offence under Sections 395, 397 and 307 IPC vide FIR Ex. P29 and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation, the police prepared site plan, Ex. P. 8, arrested the accused, got conducted identification parade, recovered the looted property on the information and at the instance of the accused and having completed investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the court of learned Judicial magistrate Dausa. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence and material on record framed the charge under Sec. 395 and 412 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. In their explanation, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and offered their explanation. Some of the accused also got examined some witnesses in their defence.

( 4 ) AT the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted all the accused under Sec. 395 IPC except accused ramanand who has been convicted for offence under Section 412 IPC, and sentenced them to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

( 5 ) AT the very out set it may be stated that in all four appeals were filed against the impugned judgment. The fourth appeal bearing No. 150/84 already stood disposed of as having become abated on account of death of appellant heeralal, vide order dated 2-4-2004. During pendency of these three appeals, appellants Moolya, Dulya and Mohan Lal have also expired and since no application within the stipulated period was filed on behalf of deceased appellants to prosecute the appeals, their appeals also stands abated. Now remains only five appellants, namely, Narayan, Laxman singh S/o Dilip Singh, Laxman Singh s/o Nand Singh, Balbir and Ramanand, whose conviction is under challenge.

( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record.

( 7 ) ON going through the impugned judgment it appears that the learned trial court has convicted appellants Narayan, laxman Singh S/o Dilip Singh, Laxman singh S/o Nand Singh and Balbir on the basis of their identification. The trial court concluded that the prosecution witnesses have correctly identified these appellants as miscrients who committed dacoity. PW 7 Anil Kumar Mishra conducted identification parade of Laxman singh S/o Dilip Singh and Balbir, vide identification memo Ex. P4 and four witnesses, namely Bhagwan Sahai, Smt. Chand Bai, Kajodmal and Damodar Prasad were called for their identification. PW 19 Rakesh Kumar Mathur and PW 6 Brij mohan Chauhan conducted identification parade of appellants Narayan and Laxman singh S/o Nand Singh, respec