JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 3-7-71 by which he convicted the appellants under sections 399 and 402 IPC and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for three years and two years respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.I heard arguments and perused the record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that it was reported at the police station Pahadi, District Bharatpur that the appellants had assembled in the night of 30-9-1970 in Idgah at Pahadi Guwal at a distance of five furlongs from the police station Pahadi for the purposes of preparing for the committing dacoity. The S.H.O. Karan Singh PW 4 proceeded with a party of constables to the place at about 11:30 p.m. The police force surrounded the accused and fired a very light pistol. The accused tried to escape but the police -force succeeded in arresting them. From the possession of the accused fire arras were recovered except in the case of Kartar Singh from whom a sword was recovered. The recovery memos are Ex. P. 2 to Ex. P. 7 3. The accused took up the plea that they were innocent. They were arrested long before the occurrence by the S.H.O., Kama. They were subjected to beating and kept in the police lock-up where even bribe was demand from them by the police officers for their release. They were then brought in a truck to police station, Pahadi on 30-9-70. A story of their being caught at Idgah in Guwal Pahadi was refuted by them. Kartar Singh enforced his plea by producing his wife Mst. Pyaro Bai GW 3 to depose that when her husband was unlawfully detained by the police station. Kama, an application for bail was made in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate Deeg. It was rejected on 25-9-70 because the police reported that the accused Kartar Singh was not arrested at all by them, nor was he wanted in the case mentioned in the bail application. The order of the learned magistrate is Ex. D 3. She also proved one more application Ex. D. 2 which she posted to the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, on 27-9-70. It was received by the Sessions Judge on 29-9-70 and forwarded the same day to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur for necessary action. The order of the learned magistrate is Ex. D 3. She also proved one more application Ex. D. 2 which she posted to the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, on 27-9-70. It was received by the Sessions Judge on 29-9-70 and forwarded the same day to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur for necessary action. In this application, She had stated that her husband was detained in the police station, Kama right from the 1st September, 1970, and he was put to torture and the police was even denying that they had detained him. This evidence was led by Kartar Singh in order to show that on 30-9-70 when he is alleged to have been arrested at the Idgah Pahadi Guwal, he was already under detention in the police station, Kama and it simply was not possible for him to be there at the said Idgah. 4. The learned trial judge rejected the defence version. He also disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned judge found that four of the appellants belonged to different villages of District Bharatpur, and two of them were living in different villages of District Mathura. They also belonged to different castes. All the accused were found together at midnight in a solitary place far away from their place of residence and with fire arras and ammunition. The learned judge therefore, held that inference was irresistible that the appellants had assembled for the purposes of committing dacoity. It is true that no implement of house breaking was recovered from them, nor were they in possession of any conveyance and two of them were residents of the area of police station Pahadi. But in spite of this, the learned trial judge held that it was not explained what business the appellants had in the Guwal Pahadi for assembling together at that hour of the night. It was a matter of inference from the circumstances proved in the case that the accused had assembled for the purposes of committing dacoity and were making preparation for committing the same. That is how the accused appellants came to be convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. I have gone through the evidence recorded. There is no reason to disbelieve then statement of the.S H.O. and the members of his party. They have given out how the six accused-appellants were found and arrested. That is how the accused appellants came to be convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. I have gone through the evidence recorded. There is no reason to disbelieve then statement of the.S H.O. and the members of his party. They have given out how the six accused-appellants were found and arrested. Ramanlal PW 1 has deposed that out of the appellants Kartar Singh was a history sheeter. Chandan Singh PW 3 deposed that Ramdhan was a reputed -Badmash' of the area. The arrest memos and the recoveries have been proved by the statements of the police officer though the two motbirs Pooran Mai PW 5 and Charan Das PW 6 have not supported the recoveries, beyond saying that the memos bore their signatures. The recoveries comprised one 12 bore gun, three country made pistols, 32 catridges, one muzzle loaded gun with 20 pellets and a small bag of gunpowder, one swot torches and 5 bags. I also do not find any force in the plea that the accused were arrested by the police Kama and then were taken to Pahadi in order to foist a false case upon them. If the police wanted to do so, this could be done in Kama area itself. As regards Kartar Singh even if we believe that he was with the police station Kama on 27-9-70, as per Ex. D2 what was there to believe further that he was not let go by the police and could not reach Pahadi on 30-9-70 ? Kehari DW 1 and Moolchand DW 2 could not give the dates of arrest of Ramdhan and Popi respectively by police, Kama. Shiv Charan DW 4 is a truck driver and claims to have transported the accused from Kama to Pahadi 3-4 months before his statement made on 24-6-74. All this evidence therefore is of no avail to the accused. 6. I agree therefore with the findings of the learned trial judge that if persons five or more of different castes and different places as the appellants were going about armed with guns and a lot of ammunition and torches and were found assembled in night in a solitary place and began to run when challenged by the police, then there are very strong circumstances for coming to the conclusion that the accused had assembled for the purposes of, and were all set for, committing dacoity. They have been rightly convicted under section 402 and 399 IPC. The sentences awarded to them do also not call for any reduction. 7. I therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same. The accused were granted bail in this case on 19-7-71. Out of them Kartar Singh is already undergoing sentence for committing under of one Smt. Vidya Jain of Delhi. He has been brought from Tihar Jail, Delhi to Jodhpur Jail and has made an application that he may be sent back to Tihar Jail. He may be now sent back according to the relevant rules. The remaining five accused persons shall surrender to their bail bonds for the purpose of serving their sentences. If they fail to do so, then, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur shall take proper steps to have them arrested and committed to prison for the purpose. *******