Short Note : 1. In all 9 accused including the appellants were tried under sections 399, 400 and 402, Indian Penal Code. Of them the accused Ramsingh has been released on probation while accused Chironji and Mula son of Bedaria were acquitted of the charges. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under : Each of the appellants Ramdhu, Guicharan, Mula, Semna, Ramu and Soogarsingh has been convicted under section 402, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 100 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more and also under section 399, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 100 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. 2. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts were that on 30-7-1976 G.S. Rathor (P.W.7), Station Officer, Pahargarh received information through mukhbir that some dacoits were gathering with arms near village Koda on Chambal canal. This information was recorded by the Station Officer in roznamcha sana (Ex. P. 11). The Station Officer thereupon sent message through wireless to P.W.1 Harpalsingh Station Officer, Chinnoni and P.W.6 Hardas Bairagi Station Officer, Sabalgarh. Short time after these Station Officers and other police officials gathered together at police station Pahargarh. They prepared a plan by which the police force was divided into three parties, one led by Station Officer G.S. Rathor (P.W.7), the other by Station Officer Hardas Bairagi (P.W.6) and the third by Station Officer Harpalsingh (P.W.1) and Station Officer Bhagat Singh (P.W.2). They proceeded to the spot. It was alleged that at about midnight some 10-11 miscreants were sighted at the canal bank. The police parties surrounded them and after challenging them, they managed to apprehend the appellants and accused Ramsingh on the spot. They were variously armed. They were arrested on the spot and the arms were seized from them. After completing the formalities the appellants and accused Ramsingh were prosecuted. 4. In trial the appellants abjured their guilt and denied if they were apprehended on the spot. Their contention was that they were called and arrested from their homes. 5. In appeal it was contended by the appellants that the story of their being apprehended on the spot with arms, has not been conclusively proved and that their defence ought to have been accepted. Their contention was that they were called and arrested from their homes. 5. In appeal it was contended by the appellants that the story of their being apprehended on the spot with arms, has not been conclusively proved and that their defence ought to have been accepted. Held : In this behalf the contention was that there are contradictions as to in what manner the police force proceeded to the spot, arrested the appellants and brought them with their arms. 6. In this connection it was stated that one of the witnesses has stated that they had proceeded to the spot in a police-van while the others stated that they had gone and returned on foot. The material witnesses on this point are Bhagat Singh (P.W. 2), Hardas Bairagi (P.W.6) and G.S. Rathor (P.W.7) who have stated that they alongwith the police force had been to the spot on foot and returned likewise after arresting the appellants with arms. However, Harpalsingh (P.W.1) who was examined on 19-2-1977 happened to state that he had gone to the Pahargarh thana in a police-van and then they went to the spot in the van. Much was tried to be made of this contradiction. After due consideration I am of the view that it does not appear to be material contradiction. Harpalsingh (P.W.1) had arrived from his thana to Pahargarh thana in a police van and in the same vein he happened to say that the police force proceeded in the van and returned likewise. In these circumstances there has been slip in the statement of this witness be cause he had come from his thana to Pahargarh thana in a police-van. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence in para 17 of its judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also of the view that it was not a material contradiction. On consideration, specially looking to the other facts and the circumstances appearing in the case, the prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard because of this discrepancy. In fact, there is the consistent evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that G.S. Rathor (P.W.7), Station Officer, Pahargarh police station, had received information and he had immediately contacted the Station Officers of other police stations, wherefrom all of them gathered at Pahargarh and after preparing a plan, succeeded in apprehending the miscreants. 7. In fact, there is the consistent evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that G.S. Rathor (P.W.7), Station Officer, Pahargarh police station, had received information and he had immediately contacted the Station Officers of other police stations, wherefrom all of them gathered at Pahargarh and after preparing a plan, succeeded in apprehending the miscreants. 7. It was also urged for the appellants that there is some discrepancy regarding the time when the police returned to the thana. The general statement of the aforesaid witnesses is that they returned to the thana at about 3 or 4 in the early morning. The statement of one of the witnesses i.e. Bhagat Singh (P.W.2) is that they returned to the Pahargarh thana about 1½ hours after. It is a general type of statement and is not sufficient to dislodge the evidence of other witnesses. In fact, it does not appear to be a material discrepancy. 8. It was further contended on behalf of the appellants that accused Chironji and Mula son of Bedaria were found not guilty because the witnesses were disbelieved when they stated that the Mukhbir had pointed out these accused who managed to run away and could not be apprehended. The trial Court disbelieved this part of the evidence and giving benefit of doubt acquitted accused Chironji and Mula son of Bedaria. Simply for that reason only, it would not at all be justifiable to hold that the appellants should also be given benefit of doubt. 9. It is pertinent to note that the appellants were arrested on spot and Panchnama was prepared there. The arms which the appellants were wielding at that time was also seized and seizure-memos. (Ex P. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10) prepared. Appellant Ramdhu and appellant Guicharan were wearing khaki dress and each was armed with gun. Appellant Mula son of Dhansukh was armed with a Farsha, accused Ramsingh with a lathi, appellant Samna with lathi, appellant Ramu with an axe, appellant Soogarsingh with a bhala. 10. Thus, after the reappraisal of the evidence on record, agreeing with the learned trial Court, I hold that the appellants were arrested from the spot with the said arms on the basis of the information which Station Officer, Pahargarh had received from Mukhbir. 11. 10. Thus, after the reappraisal of the evidence on record, agreeing with the learned trial Court, I hold that the appellants were arrested from the spot with the said arms on the basis of the information which Station Officer, Pahargarh had received from Mukhbir. 11. The last contention on behalf of the appellants is that in the circumstances of the case though offence under section 402, Indian Penal Code has been proved; but that under section 399, Indian Penal Code has not been established as there is no direct evidence of preparation for dacoity, under section 399, Indian Penal Code. In this connection, the facts and the circumstances would be crucial to determine whether this offence is established. In the first place there is information by Mukhbir, the appellants were found together in the dead of night in a lonely place near village Koda. They were variously armed. In all these circumstances, offences under sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code, were proved to the hilt. 12. As for the sentence, rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 399, Indian Penal Code appears to be rather heavy and so also three years for the offence under section 402, Indian Penal Code and deserves to be reduced without imposition of fine. Appeals partly allowed.