Thereat, P.W.6 was able to identify the appellant as one of the dacoits besides others, with whom we are presently number companycerned with, and claimed that he was the one who had a revolver with him which he employed during the companyrse of the occurrence.
P.W.6, however, chose number to identify the appellant at the trial and rather said that he companyld number recognize the accused whom he had identified at the indentification parade.
The occurrence took place shortly after the train left Keshar station for its onward journey to Calcutta.
At the trial P.W.7 fully supported the prosecution case, deposing that P.W.6 had before him identified the appellant as the dacoit carrying a revolver.
A person was killed during the companyrse of companymission of dacoity and the dacoits caused hurts to others and looted their property.
The Train Ticket Examiner, P.W.3, was also one of the occupants in the train who was injured.
At that juncture, the trial judge recorded his remarks as to his demeanor that the witness perhaps was afraid of the accused.
Added thereto was the remark of the trial companyrt about the demeanor of the witness P.W.6.
He was put to identification parade companyducted by Judicial Magistrate.
The appellant, was later arrested as one of the culprits.
When his pointed attention was drawn towards the appellant, he did number identify him.
W.6, Diwakar Yadav, was one such person who was robbed.
The matter was reported to the police by W.3.
This incident happened in the State of Bihar.
Bharatji Misra, P.W.7.
The appellant was allegedly one of the dacoits.
It thus became evident that the witness was frightened to accord recognition to the appellant at the trial.
