D 7, dated March 26, 1968 made during the companyrse of investigation, Diwakar had referred to only two dacoits whom he companyld Identify and gave their description.
Diwakars evidence was to the effect, that the dacoits after beating Ramgopal, rushed into the rear rooms of the house and brought out all the valuables for being filled in gunny bags.
In this companynection 19 persons were arrested by the police.
The Sessions Judge, Rewa, who fried the case, companyvicted two of the accused, namely, Jawaharlal and Munnilal under Sections 395 and 397 read with Section 109.
In the face of these infirmities, it companyld number be said that the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of Diwakar with companysequent acquittal of the appellant, were unsound.
The High Court has reversed this finding of the trial Court with this reasoning This respondent No.
Antar Singh only is the appellant before us.
Against the order of their acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh carried an appeal to the High Court, which set aside the acquittal of Antar Singh, Tulsi Ram and Ajijuddin, who were original accused I, 4 and 8 respectively, and companyvicted and sentenced each of them under Section 395, I.P.C. to four years rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant and the companyaccused were number known to the witness.
No explanation for this delay in holding that test identification was given by the prosecution.
A lantern was also burning in the room.
His test identification was held about 12 months after the occurrence and seven months after his arrest.
A test identification in respect of 9 accused, including Antar Singh, was subsequently held on Dec. 26, 1968.
D 6 dated Feb. 8, 1968 and Ex.
He acquitted the remaining 13 accused, including Antar Singh.
No explanation whatever, was furnished as to why the appellant was number promptly put up for test identification, after his arrest.
The mainstay of the prosecution case against Antar Singh was the testimony of the solitary witness, Diwakar son of Rampratit.
One of them was holding a Tamancha, the other a gun and the third a lathi.
This unexplained delay, according to the learned trial Judge, was capable of lending support to the defence plea that the accused had been shown to the witness.
Antar Singh appellant was arrested toy the police on May 28, 1968.
Diwakar is said to have identified Antar Singh only at that parade.
Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to four years rigorous imprisonment.
A test identification in respect of some of the accused was held on Nov. 17, 1968.
Out of them, 15 were charged with offences under Sections 395/397/109 read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code.
This was number a case where it companyld be said that the view of Diwakars evidence taken by the trial Court was unreasonable or unsound.
The Identification of the appellant by Diwakar at the parade and later at the trial, companyld number be safely relied upon for these reasons.
In the opinion of the trial Judge, this belated test identification of the appellant was number of high quality that companyld lend assurance or companyplete veracity to the identification of this accused by Diwakar in Court.
A test identification parade was held on Nov. 17, 1968 before a Magistrate in respect of some of the companyaccused of the appellant who were alleged to be companycerned in the same dacoity.
But, the appellant was number then put up for identification.
Three of the dacoits stood by the side of the witness.
The dacoits had battery torches which they were flashing.
He, therefore, accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him.
Those two were identified by him as Gitty Singh and Munni Lal accused.
The witness made a deliberate improvement on this point at the trial.
3 lakhs was looted.
In the said previous statements, Diwakar has number referred to any dacoit, with a gun, and thus there was numberreference to the particular role of the appellant in the dacoity.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated September, 15, 1977 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, arises out of these circumstances On the night intervening January 5 and 6, 1968, two dacoities were companymitted in the houses of Ramgopal Soni P.W. 1 and Rampratit Saraf P.W. 4 at village Nagama, and property companysisting of gold and silver ornaments worth more than Rs.
1 Antar Singh has alleged that at Allahabad he was shown to certain strangers by the police but surprisingly P. S. I. Tiwari P.W. 59 who had arrested him has number at all been questioned on this matter, Naib Tehsildar R.K. Tiwari P.W. 4 who companyducted the parade had deposed that numbersuch objection was taken before him.
Instead of running away, the witness followed the dacoits into the house, merely out of curiosity.
