On the report a case was registered and the police visited the place of incident.
Admittedly, it was a dark night.
The prosecution examined 23 witnesses in support of its case.
The Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatput put them to identification by the witnesses.
With regard to the identification of the accused persons at the time of companymission of offence, the High Court found that the dacoity was companymitted during the night intervening 25th and 26th November, 1987.
With regard to identification of accused, at the identification parade, the High Court companysidered the evidence of PW 1 Ramji Lal, PW 6 Sukkho and PW 7 Rekha who stated that they came to know about the arrest of dacoits after few days.
Brief facts of the case are that during the night intervening 25th and 26th November, 1987, a report was lodged by one Ramji Lal PW 1 at Police Station, Sever that a dacoity had been companymitted at Village Samarpur.
For a number of days, the accused persons were detained at the police station.
On November 27, 1987, Ramsukh, Ramji Lal and Chandan submitted a list of articles looted from their houses.
The Court also found the recovery of the articles as doubtful because prior to the arrest of the accused persons and before their giving information under Section 27 of the Evidence act, the articles were recovered by the police.
The Court proceeded to state that according to the prosecution, just after their arrest, the accused persons gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of that information, certain articles were recovered.
Immediately, their arrest was number shown.
Police recovered 3 empties of .12 bore, 3 empties of .315 bore and a glass piece of .315 bore from the spot.
Ramji Lal, PW 1 also stated before the Police that he companyld recognize the accused in the electric light.
So far as Ramsukh is companycerned, temporary electric bulb was there in the chowk.
In the incident, they shot at Dwarka Prasad on chest who died.
The Court also companysidered the statement of PW 23 Ramswaroop Yadav, SHO.
No evidence was adduced in their defence by the accused persons.
All this shows observed the High Court, that the accused persons were arrested just after 7 8 days of the incident but their arrest was shown on December 21/22, 1987.
The witnesses identified them.
The evidence was number companysistent as to electricity at the house of PW1 Ramji Lal.
The Court numbered that there was numberreason for the SHO number to mention the presence of electric bulb in the site plan if it was there as it was a very important aspect and it was the case of prosecution that the witnesses had identified the dacoits in the light of electric bulb.
The seized and recovered articles were also put to identification and they were also identified by the persons to whom they belonged.
But, according to the prosecution witnesses, they had companye to know 7 8 days after the incident that the accused persons had been arrested and that the stolen articles were recovered.
Netrapal, Lakhmi and Vijendra were companyvicted for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 1 a of the Arms Act and were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur companyvicted accused Netrapal, Dhanpal, Raju and Shyam Singh under Section 395 IPC and ordered them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 395 read with 397 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short and also under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted all the accused of the charges giving them benefit of doubt in the matter of identification of the accused persons of recovery of articles at their instance and of identity of articles and ornaments.
He did number mention as to at which place the electric bulb at the house of Ramsukh was on, number was the existence of the bulb was shown in the site plan Ex.
They also denied recovery of the articles and companytended that they were falsely implicated in the case.
The accused persons denied the charges framed against them.
There was also inconsistency as to whether there was electricity in the village.
The accused persons were arrested by the Police.
The Court observed that it meant the arrest of the accused persons, their giving information as well as the recovery were all false ones and they all have been manipulated later on.
But the evidence also showed tht the bulb was number working.
He orally mentioned that there was electric light in the village.
302 of 1989 and 322 of 1989 acquitting all the accused of the charges levelled against them.
C.K. Thakker, J. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated November 3, 1989 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.
It was alleged that at about 12.00 night, while he was sleeping in his room with his father Dwarika Prasad and younger brother Satish, 10 15 dacoits armed with lathis and guns came to his room and hit them with lathis and looted movable properties, ornaments of gold and silver from the houses of Ramji Lal, Chandan, Gopal and Ramsukh.
