The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific charges, the importance of consistent witness testimonies, and the necessity of sufficient evidence to support convictions under the Indian Penal Code.

The present Criminal Appeals are arising out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant Chaitu Uraon has preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1063 of 2003 and the appellant Deomohan Singh has preferred Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1193 of 2003, whereby the court below has convicted appellant Chaitu Uraon u/s 412 I.P.C and appellant Deomohan Singh u/s 397/412 I.P.C. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted Balku Sao, Chuni Lal Sao, Ropna Sao as well as Chaitu Uraon u/s 397 and all the accused have been acquitted for offence u/s 376 I.P.C. as well as 120(b) I.P.C. The State has not preferred any acquittal appeal against the acquittal of the other accused persons and also against these two appellants Chaitu Uraon and Deomohan Singh. The learned Trial Court found Chaitu Uraon and Deomohan Singh guilty for offence u/s 412 I.P.C. against both the appellants and awarded them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in case of default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo S.I. for three months, so far appellant Deomohan Singh is concerned, he has been separately convicted u/s 397 IPC and has been awarded a rigorous imprisonment for seven years, against the said impugned, judgment the present appeals have been preferred. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1995/S.T. No. 75 of 1998.

2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of informant Basant Sao (P.W. 11) which was recorded by A.S.I. Rabindra Prasad Singh. As per the prosecution case, the informant has stated that in the night of 16.04.1994 (Saturday) after taking dinner, all the inmates of the house were sleeping in the house, closing the door and on hearing the noise of breaking the door, they got up and raised hulla about thieves. Upon which accused persons exploded a bomb and also threatened that if the inmates are raising hulla they will start firing. Upon this the inmates of the house stopped raising hulla and after breaking the door, the accused persons entered into the house and one of the accused was having a gun who fired, which hit on the left hand of the father of the informant Bhadar Sao, causing bleeding injury. The informant has categorically stated that after breaking the door, five accused persons entered the house and some of the accused have surrounded their house. It is stated that accused persons after entering into the house have looted utensils, hero bicycle, one wrist watch H.M.T., 2.5 horse power Machine, other ornaments of silver, cloths and cash of Rs. 5,000/-. The informant has further stated that they were assaulted by the accused persons asking them to disclose about their other articles. The informant has categorically stated that his brother Rajendra Sao, mother Balki Devi have been assaulted and threatened, that if they will raise noise, they will be killed. The informant has stated that one of the accused was having a small gun, others were having baluwa, tangi and danda. The informant has stated that at that time, dhibri was burning in the room, in which he has identified the accused. Three of the accused persons were tall, fair in complexion and two were short. They were using Hindi language and the informant has claimed to identify them after seeing them. On threat given by the accused persons, the informants and others did not raise hulla, during the commission of the dacoity, two other bombs were exploded, due to which none of the persons came there. The dacoits have also assaulted his eldest Uncle Chuni Lal Sao and stripped off the cloths of wife of the younger brother and a match stick was used for burning the hair of the head.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police registered Sisai, P.S. Case No. 39 of 1994 dated 17.04.1994 under consequent G.R. No. 257 of 1994 and