The identification parade was not conducted properly, the fingerprints of the two accused persons were not proved, the police officials who arrested the accused persons were not examined, and the evidence on record was not appreciated correctly by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judjement dated 18th December, 1984, passed by the Sessions Judge. Tonk, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:

Name of accused	Offence Under/Section	Punishment
All accused persons	Section 148 I.P.C.	3 years' RI and a fine of , 100/-
"	395/397 or 396/397 I.P.C.	7 years' RI;
"	302 or 302/149 I.P.C.	Life imprisonment and a fine of , 200/- and in default
"	396 or 396/149 IPC	Life imprisonment and a fine of , 200/- and in default
"	397 I.P.C.	7 years RI;
Birbal Ramnarayan Dhari Binda alias Fulgan	460 I.P.C.	10 years' RI and a fine of , 200/- and in default 2 months' RI.

All the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-appellants, were, how ever, ordered to run concurrently.

2. On 7th April, 1984, on Mannalal Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bagrwa submitted a written-report at PS-Piplu; to the effect that some miscreants had committed dacoity at the house of Bhanwarlal son of Madholal, at village Naurangpura, on the intervening night of 6th and 7th, and that in that dacoity, the property of Bhanwarlal had been looted. According to the report, Bhanwarlal was not present in the village, at that time. The informant mentioned in the report that when Bhanwarlal would return to village a list of his stolen articles, would be submitted. Bhanwarlal's son Ramgopal was present, and he told him that his transistor of 2 bands of Jemco-make and 10-15 silver coins had been taken away by the dacoits. In the report, he also mentioned that Ramgopal and other villagers, namely, Shivratan Singh, Laxmansingh, Ramkaran, Nanda and Bhagwana had also arrived there. They gave warning to those miscreants, and thereupon, the latter started giving blows by lathis and knives In that occurrence, all the persons were injured, and particularly, the condition of Bhagwana was not good. He also mentioned in the report that one lantern was burning outside his shop, and that Ramgopal and a few other persons then followed the miscreants in a tractor. The villagers had seen those dacoits very well, in the light of the lantern, and they could identify them.

3. The above report was submitted at about 10.30 a.m. on 7th April, 1984, and on the basis of this report, a case under Section 395, I.P.C. was registered.

4. The injured persons were sent to hospital. Some time thereafter, Bhagwana died at the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The case was then converted into that under Sections 302/396, I.P.C. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested by the police. Birbal and Pulgan were arrested on 17th April, 1984 while the other six accused persons were arrested on 8th April, 1984. The police also recovered some minor articles from possession of some of the accused persons. Identification-parade was also conducted by the Magistrate, and the accused-appellants were identified by the prosecution witnesses.

5. After completing usual investigation, a challan was submitted.

6. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 397, 397/149, 302, 302/149, 396, 396/149, 395, 395/149, 459 and 460, I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. The accused persons also examined 1 witness in their defence. After concluding the trial, the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them as mentioned above.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction of the appellants is illegal and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. According to him, their conviction is based on the identification of the accused persons, and that the identification-parade was not conducted properly. The accused persons were shown to the prosecution witnesses prior to the identification-parade, and hence, the said identification-parade has no substantial value. It was also argued by him th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document