- (1.)CRIMINAL Appeal No. 733 of 1997 by original accused nos. 1, 2,3 and 4 - present appellants 1, 2, 3 and 4 is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 30. 07. 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 129 of 1993, whereby the accused have been convicted of the charges leveled against them under sections 394 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code. The accused are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code. The accused were also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under section 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
1. 1 Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 1997 by original accused no. 5 - present appellants 5 is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 30. 07. 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 129 of 1993, whereby the accused has been convicted of the charges leveled against him under sections 394 of Indian Penal Code. The accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under section 394 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.)MR. Amin states that the original accused nos. 2 and 3- present appellants nos. 2 and 3 have already undergone the sentence imposed upon them. He therefore does not press this appeal qua accused nos. 2 and 3. The appeals are heard for the remaining accused.
(3.)IT is the case of the prosecution that on 14. 06. 1993, when the complainant who is a clerk-cum-cashier in the S. T. Corporation proceeded to deposit cash amounting to Rs. 398025. 90 in S. T bus no. GRU 9844, the bus halted at Patani Darwaja as the road further was narrow. The watchman and the complainant therefore got down and started to walk towards the bank. When they reached near Nagina Masjid at about 11. 00 am three persons came and suddenly one person snatched the bag of the complainant. The watchman tried to obstruct but one of the men fired from his revolver in the air. The police was informed and the injured were sent to hospital for treatment.
3. 1 Thereafter on the strength of the complaint investigation was carried out and chargesheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court.

3. 2 The trial was initiated against the appellants and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses as oral evidences: shivabhai Khodabhai Parmar Ex. 12 mafaji Revaji Ex. 14 mohmadrafiq Shaikh Ex. 16 udesingh Jhilubha Ex. 18 kanji Bechar Patel Ex. 20 ranchhodbhai Solanki Ex. 21 dr. Parimal Jani Ex. 24 natubbhai Chhaganbhai Prajapati Ex. 29 dilipkumar Barot Ex. 31 amarsingh Thakore Ex. 32 sanubha Pratapsingh Ex. 33 dilipkumar Rathod Ex. 35 haribhai Thakore Ex. 36 rupabhai Raval Ex. 37 fakimohamad Ghanchi Ex. 40 singhji Baranda Ex. 41 ghudabhai Ranchhodbhai Ex. 44 bavanji Vadhiya Ex. 48

3. 3 The prosecution had also exhibited the following documents as documentary evidences: complaint Ex. 13 panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 15 panchnama of Rs. 8000/- notes Ex. 34 panchnama of seizure of bullet Ex. 42 panchnama of vehicle Ex. 30 diesel bill Ex. 34 panchnama of absconding accused Ex. 19 notification Ex. 54 report of serious offence Ex. 50 outward note Ex. 51 injury certificate Ex. 25 injury certificate Ex. 26 yadi Ex. 52 extract of station diary Ex. 45

3. 4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused, and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of the charges leveled against him by judgement and order dated 30. 07. 1997.

3. 5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellants have preferred the present appeals.