(1.) The only question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant Sheo Nath, should be convicted under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, or Section 411, Indian Penal Code, or Section 412, Indian Penal Code. The facts as found by the High Court are these. A dacoity was committed at the shop of Ram Murat in Dhaneja village by 15 to 20 persons on August 19, 1966, at about 11.30 p. m. One dacoit Ram Shankar, as armed with a gun while others carried spears, Gandasas and lathis. During the course of the dacoity Ram Murat was injured. One Pancham who lived in a house not far from Ram Murat's shop, and two others came running on hearing the noise. Pancham was shot down with the gun by dacoit Ram Shankar. The dacoits then escaped with clothes, ornaments, cash, etc., looted from Ram Murat's shop. After the dacoits left Ram Murat dictated a report about the occurrence in which he named Ram Shankar Singh, Jaintri Prasad Singh, Nanhe Singh and Sulai accused as having been among the culprits and this report was sent to the Jalalpur police station, five miles away, where it was received and recorded at 6 a. m. next morning.
(2.) On August 22, 1966, i.e., three days after the dacoity, the house of Sheo Nath, appellant, was searched and three lengths of cloth were recovered which were subsequently identified by Ram Murat and a tailor named Bismillah as having been stolen from Ram Murat's shop in the dacoity.
(3.) The High Court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place and regarding the participation of the four named accused persons. Sheo Nath had not been named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pancham and no witness claimed to have identified him taking part in the dacoity. But relying on the discovery of three lengths of cloth and their identification, the High Court convicted Sheo Nath under Section 396, I. P. C. The High Court observed: