2) Te appellant/State filed Criminal Appe‘l No.679 of 1987 h a against the acquittal of accused persons Virendra @ Rajkumar, Praksh, Vijaykumar, Maheshprasad, Jugaikishore- and a Hukumchand vide impugned judgment dated 231019986, passed by the Third Additona] Sessions Judg, Biiaspur in Sessions Trial i e No.1 10/1985, whereby aii the six accused psons were acuitted er q of he charge under Secion 396 of the indian Pena! Code. t t 3) The appeal agn the acquittat of two accused persons, \ aist nameiy. Vijayumar and Juaikishore was eparated de order k g s vi dated 25.8.192, passed in Criminal Appeal No.679 of 1987 and a 09 separae appeal was directed to be regisered against th acquittal t t e of respondents No.3 and 5 Vijaykumar and Jugalkishore and this is ho riminal Appeal No.831 of 1992 came to be registered gainst w C a ma d ‘ Vijaykur an Jugalkishore. 4) Polce Gourella, district Bilaspur after comple of the i tion investigation of the case registered on the reprt of o Shankar Prasad charge-eete as many as six accused shd persons, nmely, Vindra @ Rajkumar.‘ Prakash, Vijaykumar: a re Maheshprasad, Jugalkishore and Hukumchand for he alleged t commission of the offences punishable under Section 396 of the lndian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Baijnath while committing dacoity in his house in the night of 08.041 984. 5) _The respondents/accused persons abjured th‘eir guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court. 3 6) At the trial: the above charges against the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW/‘i $hankar Prasad, PW/2 Gayaprasad, PW/3 Narendra Kumar Singh, PW/4 Hira Singh PW/S Sukrut Das, PW/6 lshwari Prasad. PW]? Patras Tirkey, F’Wi8 Dr NK Samdariya, PW/Q NM Qureshi, PWMO Ramjeevan Tripathi, PW/11 Shivshankar, PWI12 Rajeshwar Singh, PW/13 Jagatpal Singh, PW/14 DP Thakur, F’WHS Dr Satish Singh, and PWI18 Dr S Maravi. 7) Of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution at the triai, PW/1 Shankar Prasad, PW/2 Gayaprasad and PWI'H $hivshankar were examined as eyewitnesses of the alleged incident. 8) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of PWI1 Shankar Prasad, PWI2 Gayaprasad and PW/il Shivshankar in particular found that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from serious infirmities; the test identification parade for the identification of the accused persons was not properly conducted; according to the prosecution witnesses, the miscreants had covered their faces with towel; the eyewitnesses did not disclose the description of the miscreants in their case-diarv statements. On account of the above infirmities, the trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon the prosecution evidence. The triai Court, therefore, following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Wakil Singh and others Vs State of Bihar reported in 1981 CLLJ 1014 : AIR 1981 SC ti 1392, acquitted the accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 28.1 0.1 986. 9) Shri JA Lohani, Iearned Panei Lawyer vehemently argued that the triai Court has erred in acquitting the respondents i accused persons by discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenabie grounds. Learned Panel Lawyer further submitted that, the eyewitness account of PWH . Shankar,‘Prasad, PW/Z Gayaprasad and‘PWI'11 Shivshankar was more than sufficient to estabiish the charges of dacoity and murder against the accused persons. 10) Admittedly, the incident of dacoity and murder of deceased Baijnath took place in the night of 08.04.1984. Even according to the prosecution case, the miscreants were not known to PW/1 ' Shahkar Prasad, PW/2 Gayaprasad and PW/ii Shivshankar. The police charge-sheeted the six respondents/ accused persons as the miscreants who committed dacoity and murder of Baijnath. in addition to that two other persons namely Devendra @ Prakash and Dhananjay Singh were also shown in the charge-sheet as absconding, meaning thereby that according to the prosecution case, there were as many as eight miscreants who committed the alleged incident on 08.04.1984. in the First information Report. registered in the form of Dehati Naiishi on the information given by PW/1 Shankar Prasad, the number of miscreants was mentioned as ‘about five’. Simiiariy, in their statements before the trial Court, PW/i Shankar Prasad gave the, number of miscreants as ‘5’, whereas PWI2 Gayaprasad and PW/H Shivshankar stated / w/ L..— j l 1 i i a that ‘4—5’ miscreants committed the incident. it was mentioned in the First information Report itself and has aiso come in the evidence of the eyewitnesses that the miscreants had covered their head and faces with towei. Though the accused persons were arrested by the Police on 69.04.1984, the test identification parade was held only on 14.04.1984. 11) it has also come in the evidence of the prosecution Witnesses that the miscreants after their arrest were kept at the Rest House in the viliage and the Investigating Ofhcer recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the same Rest House. Thus, the eyewitnesses had sufficient opportunity of seeing the persons arrested by the Police. The eyewitnesses being the inmates of the house. where the miscreants were allegedto have committed dacoity, would be very keen to see the persons arrested by the Police as early as possibie. 12) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittai of the respondents/accused persons; the evidence ied by the prosecution at the trial in generai and that of PW/1 Shankar Prasad, PW/2 Gayaprasad and PW/11 Shivshankar in particular; the above mentioned broad features of the case, in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Wakil Singh and others (supra), we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents] accused persons do not suffer frOm any infirmity, whatsoever. s ll