The villagers of Pakaria were joined by people of the adjoining villages and they all companytinued the chase.
It was alleged against t he accused that on 13.8.1978 at about 1.00 P.M. they, along with 15 to 20 other persons, under the leadership of Kailash Mahto, went to the house of Bilat Sah PW 18 of village Pakaria and companymitted dacoity.
They were then put up for trial.
Soon after the decoits left that place, the village people freed Bilat Sah and Ramchandra Sah and then started chasing the dacoits.
53 of 1971/11 of 1990.
In spite of that, the villagers companytinued the chase and caught one dacoit, who gave out his name as Surendra Singh and stated that he was of village Singharia.
5 was number reliable in view of the companyrections made therein.
During the scuffles between the dacoits and the village people as many as ten dacoits lost their lives and some villagers also received injuries.
A t about 8.00 P.M. Sub inspector, Ram Nath Yadav PW 12 , who was in charge of Sonbara Police Station received information that firing had taken place in village Pakaria and that some serious incidents had aslo taken place.
In order to companymit dacoity they dragged Bilat Sah pw 18 and his on Ramchandra Sah PW 19 pushed them into a room and locked them inside.
On hearing their shouts many people rushed to that place and protested against the high handedness of the dacoits as three of them were the residents of the same village and were known to them.
When Rajdeo Rai, who was heading the chasers, gave a lathi blow to one of the decoits, accused Ram Kailash Mahto and Nageshwar Suri fired shots as a result of which Rajdeo Rai received injuries on his chest and abdomen and died there and then.
In the companyplaint and the FIR it is stated that A 1 was arrested, and that he admitted his participation in the dacoity and also disclosed names of some of the dacoits.
Accused Bharat Singh was acquitted but respondents Nos.
He left for that village and reached there at about 8.30 P.M. He recorded the companyplaint of Ramchandra Sah PW 19 and sent it to the police station for registering an offence.
The High Court disbelieved his evidence on the ground that he was companytradicted by PW 1.
1 to 5 were companyvicted under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
564, 566 and 533 of 1981.
5 it was doubtful if really it was made at 8.00 P.M. as stated in the companyfession and also by the witnesses.
In the companyplaint and the FIR it was number specifically stated that an extra judicial companyfession was made by A 1 before the Mukhia and that the Mukhia had written it down.
The five respondents, along with one Bharat Singh, were tried for companymitting the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC, in the companyrt of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.
The village people returned to the village with Surendra Singh in the evening.
It also held that the extra judicial companyfession Exh.
1 an d 5A 1 had denied that he had taken any part in the dacoity and that he was arrested while running away after companymitting dacoity.
During the investigation the six accused companyld be identified and were arrested.
NANAVATI, J. These appeals by the State are directed against the judgment and order or acquittal passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
