Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.
(2.) THE instant appeal is directed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 27.4.2001 passed by Sri Sharang Dhar Singh, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1998 by which judgment he found the appellants namely Bindu Mandal (preferred Cr. Apl.158 of 2001), Raju Kumar Sao (preferred Cr. Apl.160 of 2001), Mohan Rabidas (preferred Cr. Apl.163 of 2001), Sanichar Rabidas @ Sanichar Chamar & Kuka Rabidas@ Koka Chamar (both preferred Cr. Apl.240 of 2001), Gorwa Rabidas @ Gorwa Chamar (preferred Cr. Apl.232 of 2001), Kanhai Mahato (preferred Cr. Apl.177 of 2001) guilty for the offence Under Section 120B and 395 of the I.P.C for hatching conspiracy for committing dacoity in broad day light from a running car on the road in cash money which name of Gomoh Branch of Allahabad Bank was going. All the accused - appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years Under Section 395 of the I.P.C and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for 3 years. All the accused -appellants were also sentenced to undergo R.I. 5 years Under Section 120B of the I.P.C. Apart from that three accused persons namely Koka Rabidas (Chamar), Sanichar Rabidas (Chamar) and Gorwa Chamar were found guilty Under Section 412 of the I.P.C and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that prosecution has failed to prove any case of conspiracy for committing the dacoity and as such conviction of the appellants Under Section 395 of the I.P.C as also Under Section 120B is bad in law and fit to be set aside. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant, Bindu Mandal that it will appear from page 10 para 8 of the impugned judgment that he has been convicted only on the basis of the statement made in the case diary which are not substantive piece of evidence and as such his conviction in absence of any evidence to make out a case of conspiracy is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant, Raju Kr. Sao has submitted that there is no evidence to support the statement of the Investigating Officer nor there is any recovery from his possession and in absence of any evidence, he has wrongly been convicted Under Section 120B of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the other appellants have also submitted that the conviction of the appellants are bad in law and fit to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has opposed the same and submitted that all the witnesses have stated that the appellants committed conspiracy to rob the cash which was being carried in a car from one branch of Allahabad Bank to another branch. As such, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants Under Section 395 and 120B of the I.P.C.;