Judgment :- Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.30/96 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal are the appellants. By the judgment dated 27.3.97 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants/A1 to A4 under Section 395 I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 2.Case of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus: Complainant-Mohamed Basil was employed with one K.M.S. Madharsha of Door No.159, V.M. Street, Thiruvellikeni. Complainant was employed to disburse money to the parties. On the night of 25.3.96, his employer Madharsha had given Mohamed Basil Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.100/- Currency Notes 10 Bundles and Rs.50/- Currency Notes-one bundle) to be handed over to one Muslim lady near Karaikal-Ambagarathur. 3. Complainant-Mohamed Basil kept the currency bundles in a cloth pouch, tied and hidden it along his waist. On the night of 25.3.96, the complainant proceeded from Madras. On the early morning at about 5.30 a.m on 26.3.96 in Mayavaram the complainant finished his morning tiffin. At about 10.00 a.m, the complainant was proceeding in the Main Road Ambagarathur in front of the house of Chandraboss. At that time, accused 1 to 4 and the absconding accused Rajou came down from the Car bearing Registration No.TN-51-Z-2442 (M.O.1) and stopped near him. A1 to A4 and the absconding accused snatched the cloth belt pouch from the complainant containing Rs.1,05,000/- and took to their heels to get into the standby car. A4-Jayaraman was waiting near the car to start the same. Complainant Mohamed Basil started to shout. P.W.1-Ramakrishnan-Home Guard and P.W.6-Selvaraj-Constable were on Panthobust Duty in connection with Ambagarathur Kaliamman Temple. Upon hearing the voice raised by Complainant-Mohamed Basil, P.Ws.1 and 6 and P.Ws.3 and 4 went near the scene. On seeing the public, A4-Jayaraman ran away from the scene of occurrence. A1 to A3 and the absconding accused Rajou were brought to Ambagarathur Police Station by P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 6 along with the Car-M.O.1 and M.O.2-Pouch containing Rs.1,05,000/-. 4. Registration of the case: Accused, Car and Cash were handed over to P.W.3-Assistant Sub-Inspector attached to Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station at 10.00 a.m. Mohamed Basil informed P.W.3 about the happenings. His statement Ex.P2 was recorded by P.W.3-A.S.I. M.O.1 car was secured with the assistance of another Home Guard-Kaliaperumal. P.W.3 produced the complainant-Mohamed Basil and his statement Ex.P2 and the accused persons before Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunnallar at 1.30 A.M on 26.3.96. His statement Ex.P2 was recorded by P.W.3-A.S.I. M.O.1 car was secured with the assistance of another Home Guard-Kaliaperumal. P.W.3 produced the complainant-Mohamed Basil and his statement Ex.P2 and the accused persons before Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunnallar at 1.30 A.M on 26.3.96. On the basis of Ex.P2 a case was registered in Crime No.23/96 under Section 395 I.P.C under Ex.P3-Express F.I.R. Cash of Rs.1,05,000/- (M.O.3 series) was seized under Ex.P4-Form-95. 5.Treatment of Mohamed Basil: Since Mohamed Basil sustained simple injuries, he was sent to Thirunallar Community Health Centre. On requisition from the Station House Officer, Thirunallar, P.W.2-Dr.Narayanasamy had treated the complainant-Mohamed Basil. He has noted multiple linear scratch mark on left side of neck. Opining that the injuries might have been caused due to finger nails and that the injuries are simple in nature P.W.2 issued Ex.P1-Wound Certificate. 6.Investigation: Upon receipt of Ex.P3-F.I.R, P.W.8-Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. The accused 1 to 3 and the absconding accused Rajou were arrested and remanded to custody on 27.3.96. Seized material objects were remanded to the court. The absconding accused Jayaraman voluntarily surrendered before the court on 10.4.96. On making necessary application, P.W.8-Investigating Officer had taken police custody of accused Jayaraman on 11.4.96 and 12.4.96. He was interrogated and later sent to judicial custody. Upon completion of the formalities of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused on 26.8.96 under Section 395 I.P.C. 7.To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. M.Os.1 to 3 were also marked. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Police witnesses P.Ws.1 and 6 as reliable. In its view, non-examination of the complainant-Mohamed Basil and his employer Madharsha would not in any way undermine the prosecution case, when the accused caught red handed in their act of committing robbery. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the hostility of P.Ws.5 and 7 would not in any way affect the core of the prosecution case. Finding that the prosecution has established guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that no leniency could be shown to the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 395 I.P.C and sentenced them to imprisonment as aforesaid. 8.Aggrieved over the conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal. Finding that the prosecution has established guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that no leniency could be shown to the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 395 I.P.C and sentenced them to imprisonment as aforesaid. 8.Aggrieved over the conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the absence of examination of the complainant and Madharsha and non-proof of the source of money fatally affects the prosecution case. Mainly laying emphasis upon the hostility of P.Ws.5 and 7 it is submitted that the trial court erred in basing the conviction upon the version of police witnesses-P.Ws.1 and 6 who are interested in securing conviction. Taking me through the evidence, the learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case is full of contradictions which was not properly appreciated by the trial court. Identification of the accused before the trial court is also subjected to attack. 9.Countering the arguments of the accused, the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) submitted that when the accused were caught red handed, the question of identification would not arise. Submitting that the looted amount is Hawala money, the complainant has not come forward to depose before the court and in that situation non-examination of the complainant would not in any way affect the prosecution case. Drawing attention of the court to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that P.Ws.1 and 6 happened to be there on Panthobust Duty, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acted upon their evidence and that the conviction and sentence of imprisonment do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 10.Upon careful re-assessment of the evidence, materials on record, judgment of the trial court and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i)Whether non-examination of the complainant-Mohamed Basil seriously undermines the prosecution case? (ii)Whether guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the Appellants/Accused under Section 395 I.P.C? (iii)Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference? 11.Before adverting to the evidence on record, we may refer to the argument which is very much urged by the accused. (ii)Whether guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the Appellants/Accused under Section 395 I.P.C? (iii)Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference? 11.Before adverting to the evidence on record, we may refer to the argument which is very much urged by the accused. After the occurrence, the accused, seized M.O.1 Car and Cash were produced before P.W.3-Assistant Sub-Inspector attached to Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station who in turn handed over them to P.W.4-Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of statement of Mohamed Basil (Ex.P2) case was registered in Crime No.23/96. Undoubtedly the law was set in motion by complainant-Mohamed Basil. Of course he is the main witness to speak to the fact that the accused attempted to commit dacoity in causing injury to him and tried to carry away the looted amount. Mohamed Basil, being the victim of dacoity, is the key witness to speak about the occurrence and identify the accused. Of course his evidence would have been the substantive evidence to prove that he carried money and that he was way laid by the accused and man handled in committing robbery. Complainant Mohamed Basil could not be examined for he was not traceable. During the trial, the Additional Public Prosecutor has made the following endorsement: "L.W.1 is not examined as he is not traceable despite best efforts by the police." In view of the endorsement by the Additional Public Prosecutor who conducted trial before the trial court, non-examination of the complainant-Mohamed Basil would not in any way affect the core of the prosecution case. 12.The amount involved is the huge amount of cash of Rs.1,05,000/-. Investigation revealed that the huge amount was involved in unlawful dealing like Hawala. Perhaps to avoid any further confrontation about the source of money and from being exposed further, it is quite natural for the complainant-Mohamed Basil not to report before the court. Much weight is to be attached to the endorsement made by the Additional Public Prosecutor. That the complainant was not traceable despite search and diligent steps taken. 13.Complainant-Mohamed Basil was employed with one K.M.S. Madharsha to disburse money. As per the statement of Mohamed Basil, on the night of 25.3.96, his employer Madharsha had given him Rs.1,05,000/- to be handed over to one Muslim lady near Karaikal-Ambaragarathur. That the complainant was not traceable despite search and diligent steps taken. 13.Complainant-Mohamed Basil was employed with one K.M.S. Madharsha to disburse money. As per the statement of Mohamed Basil, on the night of 25.3.96, his employer Madharsha had given him Rs.1,05,000/- to be handed over to one Muslim lady near Karaikal-Ambaragarathur. P.W.8-Investigating Officer had neither examined Madharsha nor made efforts to trace the Muslim lady near Karaikal to whom the money was intended to be given. The investigation and the prosecution case is attacked that the Investigating Officer ought to have investigated upon the source of money to unfold whether the complainant was actually entrusted with the money. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, if the money actually flew from illegal source, Madharsha would not have come forward to co-operate with the Investigating Agency. From para 29 of the judgment of the trial court, it is seen that huge cash of Rs.1,05,000/- remains in the court unclaimed. Neither the complainant nor Madharsha claimed M.O.3-Cash from the court which clearly indicates that the money concerned is of illegal source. Non-claiming of huge cash of Rs.1,05,000/- by Madharsha throws serious doubts about the source of money. It may be noted that in Ex.P2 the complainant has stated The nature of and the manner of acquisition of money by Madharsha remains mysterious. In that circumstance, non-examination of complainant-Mohamed Basil would not undermine the prosecution case particularly when the accused were caught red handed. 14.In a case of 'robbery' prosecution must prove:- (i)that robbery was committed or attempted; (ii)That five or more persons committed or attempted to commit robbery; or that the whole number of persons committing or attempting to commit robbery was five or more; (iii)That such persons were acting conjointly. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellants/A1 to A4 along with the absconding accused Rajou committed act of dacoity by snatching cash of M.O.3 series from the complainant-Mohamed Basil. On 26.3.96 at about 10.00 a.m at Main Road, Ambagarathur, in front of the house of Chandraboss, A1 to A3 and Rajou were caught red handed. A4-Jayaraman escaped. Later Jayaraman had voluntarily surrendered before the court on 10.4.96. Out of five accused, one accused Rajou could not be traced. On 26.3.96 at about 10.00 a.m at Main Road, Ambagarathur, in front of the house of Chandraboss, A1 to A3 and Rajou were caught red handed. A4-Jayaraman escaped. Later Jayaraman had voluntarily surrendered before the court on 10.4.96. Out of five accused, one accused Rajou could not be traced. When Rajou is not before the court, the question arises can there be conviction of four accused for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. The fact that the Investigating Agency could not trace the said Rajou would not in any way affect the question of number of persons involved. Case of prosecution cannot be assailed that the essential ingredient of five or more persons engaged in the commission of offence is not satisfied. 15.To prove the act of dacoity and that the accused were caught red handed, prosecution has examined P.W.5-Ramadoss who runs Maligai Shop in Ambagarathur Main Road. P.W.5 has confined his evidence only to the limited extent of saying that there was a tussle between the complainant-Mohamed Basil and the accused. P.W.5 has not spoken about robbery. likewise P.W.7-Mahendiran who runs cycle shop in Kanthangudi was examined. According to him, while he was working in his cycle shop he saw "some four people were pushing a person into the Ambassador Car-M.O.1 and that he and a Police Constable and Home Guard caught hold of those four people." P.W.7 has not identified the accused. For not supporting the prosecution case on dacoity, P.Ws.5 and 7 were treated hostile. On behalf of the accused much reliance is placed upon the hostility of P.Ws.5 and 7 in support of the contention that there was only tussle between the accused and the complainant which is manipulated an offence of robbery. This contention does not merit acceptance. Indifference of the public to the commission of the crime and their unwillingness to come forward to identify the accused persons, particularly, when they are involved in the commission of the offence of dacoity cannot be lost sight of. That non-identification of the accused by P.W.7 would not go to the advantage of the accused. 16.At this juncture we may usefully refer to the evidence of P.W.5. He has identified the accused and had also spoken to the factum of handing over the accused to the police station. That non-identification of the accused by P.W.7 would not go to the advantage of the accused. 16.At this juncture we may usefully refer to the evidence of P.W.5. He has identified the accused and had also spoken to the factum of handing over the accused to the police station. According to P.W.5, on the way to Police Station, he asked the accused about the reason for the tussle and the accused and the complainant-Mohamed Basil did not disclose anything. Though the evidence of P.W.5 has not supported the prosecution case on the essential aspect of dacoity, two things are made clear from his evidence:- (i)that there was a tussle between the accused and another person; (ii)The presence of the accused near the house of Chandraboss and handing over the accused to the police. The above two aspects are substantive proof of evidence, strengthening the prosecution case on the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence and involved in a tussle. 17.Case of the prosecution that A1 to A4 and the absconding accused have committed dacoity by snatching M.O.3 cash from the complainant-Mohamed Basil rest upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. P.W.1-Ramakrishnan is a Home Guard attached to the Traffic Wing of Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station. P.W.6-Selvaraj is the Constable attached to Ambagarathur Police Out Post. P.Ws.1 and 6 heard the noise raised by the complainant and went near the house of Chandraboss and apprehended A1 to A3 and the absconding accused Rajou. P.Ws.1 and 6 have consistently spoken about their hearing the noise of the complainant. On hearing the cry of the complainant, the accused attempted to get into the car with looted money. 18.Let us test the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 for its reliability and whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in basing the conviction upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. Scene of occurrence is about 200 meters from Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station. On 26.3.96, P.Ws.1 and 6 were on Panthobust Duty at Kaliamman Koil at Ambagarathur. After their duty, P.Ws.1 and 6 were returning back to the station and saw the crowd near the house of Chandraboss at Ambagathur. When they were nearing the crowd, the accused attempted to enter into the car and get away from the scene. With the assistance of the public, P.Ws.1 and 6 caught hold of them. After their duty, P.Ws.1 and 6 were returning back to the station and saw the crowd near the house of Chandraboss at Ambagathur. When they were nearing the crowd, the accused attempted to enter into the car and get away from the scene. With the assistance of the public, P.Ws.1 and 6 caught hold of them. Thus P.Ws.1 and 6 caught hold of them and brought them to Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station and handed them over in Ambagarathur Police Station. Thus P.Ws.1 and 6 have clearly explained their presence. There is nothing to doubt their presence. 19.Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is well corroborated by the fact- (i)that the accused 1 to 3 and absconding accused Rajou were caught red handed; (ii)Seizure of M.O.1 car (iii)Seizure of M.O.3 cash Though P.Ws.1 and 6 have not actually seen the act of dacoity, their evidence is to the effect that they heard the noise of P.W.1 weeping and crying that his money was being snatched. Their evidence as to the statement of the complainant-Mohamed Basil that the money was being snatched by the accused is strengthened by the contemporaneous evidence of seizure of cash and handing over of the accused to Ambagarathur Police Station and immediate lodging of the complaint. 20.P.W.1 is the Home Guard attached to Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station. P.W.6 is also the Constable attached to Ambagarathur Out Post Police Station. Their testimony is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that they happened to be the police witnesses. The court has to bear in mind the Rule of Caution depending upon the circumstances of the case. The court is to look for independent corroboration. 21.The principle of law is fairly well-settled that the testimony of the official witnesses has not to be rejected as a matter of rule merely on the ground of their official status and if it is found that the police officials had no hostility towards the culprit, the court may be perfectly justified in accepting the testimony of the official witnesses, especially when it is also found that independent witnesses are not forthcoming to speak to the facts and circumstances of the case. 22.It is not a case of keeping watch or being on regular patrolling duty and thereupon setting up a case. 22.It is not a case of keeping watch or being on regular patrolling duty and thereupon setting up a case. P.Ws.1 and 6 happened to be there in connection with Panthobust Duty and on their way back to the Police Station. Merely because P.Ws.1 and 6 are the Police Witnesses, it would be basically wrong to consider them as untruthful witnesses. The trial court has adopted a right approach in accepting their evidence and there is no reason to take a different view. 23.Main contention of the Accused/Appellants is that a false case is foisted against them. As discussed earlier, the amount involved is a huge amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. How could such huge amount be planted by the police to foist a false case against the accused. Considering the huge amount involved, the contention of the accused that a false is foisted has no merits. 24.Before the trial court, the accused raised the plea that there was only a minor road accident and that Ambassador car slightly hit against the complainant-Mohamed Basil and it is manipulated as a case of dacoity. This point was raised before the trial court and the learned Sessions Judge has considered the same in para 17 of the judgment and rejected the same. The learned Sessions Judge was right in pointing out that no prudent man would venture to twist the accident case into one of the grave offence of dacoity with a cash of Rs.1,05,000/- committed by the accused. 25.When the accused committed dacoity on the complainant-Mohamed Basil, he sustained injuries. It is clear from Ex.P1 that P.W.2-Dr.Narayanasamy attached to Thirunallar Community Health Centre treated Mohamed Basil and noted multiple linear scratch mark on the left side of neck. P.W.2 opined that the injuries would have been caused by scratches by the nails. That complainant-Mohamed Basil sustained injuries during the act of dacoity is thus proved by the definite medical evidence. 26.Recovery of M.O.3 series is of considerable importance to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused were caught red handed by P.Ws.1 and 6 and the public. When the accused were so caught red handed in the spot, their identification cannot be doubted. All the essential ingredients of Section 395 I.P.C are well proved by the strong evidence of the prosecution. The accused were caught red handed by P.Ws.1 and 6 and the public. When the accused were so caught red handed in the spot, their identification cannot be doubted. All the essential ingredients of Section 395 I.P.C are well proved by the strong evidence of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was right in finding the accused 1 to 4 guilty under Section 395 I.P.C. 27.Dacoity is the most serious crime. In any ordinary circumstance, sentence of imprisonment of ten years should be passed. Complainant-Mohamed Basil sustained only simple injuries. Considering the young age of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge showed leniency in imposing sentence of imprisonment of four years each. The sentence of imprisonment cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate warranting interference. 28.Therefore the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in S.C.30/96 (dated 27.3.97) convicting the Appellants/A1 to A4 under Section 395 I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps by issuing the warrant to secure the appellants to commit them to prison to serve the sentence.