SARRAF, J. - (1.) SINCE all the five appeals arise out of a common judgment, the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE seven accused appellants have filed these five appeals against the judgment dated 17. 1. 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 13/2003 whereby each of the seven accused appellants has been convicted under Sections 458/120-B, 395/120-B and 342/120-B IPC and each of them has been sentenced as under:- u/s. 458/120-B IPC : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months. u/s. 395/120-B IPC : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months. u/s. 342/120-B IPC : One year rigorous imprisonment. The facts in brief may be stated thus. On 27. 11. 2002 at 5. 05 A. M. one Sandeep Papdiwal submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at the place of occurrence before the Station House Officer, Police Station VKIA, Jaipur stating therein that they had a factory Vaishali Metals Pvt. Ltd. situated at G-485, Road No. 9a where at 11. 00 P. M. on 26. 11. 2002 one Ram Singh was on duty as Chowkidar. The Chowkidar was told that some goods of the factory had arrived. When the Chowkidar opened the small door, he was over-powered and beaten and he was asked to give the key. The Chowkidar refused. At this after giving a beating and after tieing cloth on his mouth and eyes he was left in the back portion of the factory and he was threatened with death if he raised noise. The culprits then entered the factory after breaking two locks of the main factory and took away copper capillaries, tubes and also finished and raw material weighing around five to six tonnes in some vehicle. According to the report, the Chowkidar apprised him on phone at about 1. 30 A. M. whereupon he informed the police and came to the factory. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P. 1) submitted by the complainant Sandeep Papdiwal a case was registered under Sections 458, 380 and 342 IPC. After investigation a challan was filed against 15 accused persons including the accused appellants. Charges under Sections 458, 395, 342 and 120-B were framed against the accused appellants and co-accused Saman Singh (who died during trial), Om Prakash and Jagdish whereas against the accused Banwari, Manish Kumar, Ram Babu, Visram and Chhota Lal charges were framed under Sections 412, 395/120-B, 458/120-B and 342/120-B IPC. The prosecution examined 38 witnesses. After hearing the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused Jagdish, Om Prakash, Visram, Chhote Lal, Manish Kumar, Ram Babu and Banwari of all the charges levelled against them but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by this judgment, the accused appellants have filed these five appeals. Heard Mr. Biri Singh, Mr. Anoop Dhand, Mr. R. L. Agarwal, Mr. Hawa Singh and Mr. K. P. Singh on behalf of the accused appellants. The accused are not named in the first information report. During investigation, a test identification parade was held but only the accused appellant Sanjay @ Irfan Ali was identified by the Chowkidar Ram Singh PW. 8 Ram Singh PW. 8, however, failed to identify the accused appellant Sanjay @ Irfan Ali in the Court. Thus, the only evidence against the accused appellants is that of recovery of the copper capillaries pursuant to the informations given by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Memos of information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused appellants Sanjay @ Irfan Ali, Raju @ Rajendra, Prakash Verma, Munna @ Moinuddin, Lala @ Naranji, Radhey Shyam and Sheodan are Ex. P. 63, Ex. P. 64, Ex. P. 65, Ex. P. 66, Ex. P. 67, Ex. P. 68 and Ex. P. 69 respectively. Manohar Singh Investigating Officer (PW. 35) has proved the above informations and he has recovered the copper capillaries. He has stated that he recovered copper capillaries weighing 95. 750 Kg. from Sanjay @ Irfan vide Ex. P. 46, 112. 750 Kg. from Raju @ Rajendra Vide Ex. P. 52, 156. 200 Kg. from Prakash Verma vide Ex. P. 54, 84. 823 Kg. from Munna @ Moinuddin vide Ex. P. 48, 80. 150 Kg. from Lala @ Naranji vide Ex. P. 50, 83. 200 Kg. from Radhey Shyam vide Ex. P. 58 and 74. 200 Kg. from Sheodan Meen vide Ex. P. 56. Investigating Officer Manohar Singh PW. 35 has proved the above recovery memos and his statement has been fully corroborated by Vinod Sharma PW. 33 and Shambhu Dayal PW. 38. The witnesses Vinod Sharma and Shambhu Dayal have also identified the recovered goods. The prosecution has thus fully established that the stolen goods were recovered from the possession of the accused appellants.
(3.) THE occurrence has taken place in the night of 26. 11. 2002 and the recoveries have been made on 4. 12. 2002. On the basis of the evidence available on the record it is legitimate to raise a presumption in this case that the accused appellants with whom the goods were found were the dacoits themselves. In my opinion learned trial Court has drawn this presumption rightly in this case. THE conviction of the accused appellants is, therefore, correct in all the circumstances of the case. Learned counsels for the accused appellants, after arguing the matter for the last three days, today submit that they do not challenge the conviction of the accused appellants under Sections 458/120-B, 395/120-B and 342/120-B IPC and their only prayer is that the sentence of imprisonment passed against the accused appellants be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them as no injury has been caused to anyone and the accused appellant Prakash Verma has suffered imprisonment for more than four years and the remaining accused appellants have suffered imprisonment for more than three years. Learned P. P. does not seriously object. ;