JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.1999 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1998 convicting the appellant No. 1, Manoj Singh alias Manoj Kumar Singh and finding him guilty under Section 392 read with Sections 297 and 411. IPC and appellant No. 2, Prahlad Singh under Sections 392 and 411, IPC and sentenced them to under go RI for seven years and three years respectively. Appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307, IPC. 2. A sanha was lodged when the police got information that Harladih Police Camp personnel and the villagers have caught two criminals who were running away after committing robbery at Harladih Rural Bank, on the point of arms. The FIR was recorded on the fardbeyan of the Manager of the Bank (PW 2). The prosecution case in brief is that on 1.7.1997 at about 1.40 p.m. the accused persons entered into the Bank and put a revolver on the chest of the Cashier (PW 3) and demanded cash on the threat of killing him. Due to fear, he took out some boundless of notes and gave the same to appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar Singh thereafter threatened the other staffs of the Bank also. He was trying to push the bundles of notes in his garments. Appellant No. 1, then asked for key of the main gate threatening that appellant No. 2 is standing out side the Bank who will kill, if any body raise hullah. Keys were given. The Bank was locked from out side and the appellants ran away. The Bank staffs raised hullah. They could un-locked the gate by duplicate keys. When the appellants were chased they fired. With the help of police, they chased and caught the appellants with revolver, keys and the looted money though looted money were recovered from the possession of both the appellants in part. The appellants disclosed their names. They were taken to Harladih Police Camp. They could un-locked the gate by duplicate keys. When the appellants were chased they fired. With the help of police, they chased and caught the appellants with revolver, keys and the looted money though looted money were recovered from the possession of both the appellants in part. The appellants disclosed their names. They were taken to Harladih Police Camp. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Pirtand P.S. case No. 27 of 1997 was registered under Sections 392 and 411, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 392, 411 and 307, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 392 and 411, IPC. Against appellant No. 1 charges were also framed under Sections 307 and 397, IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, in the support of the appeal, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the appellants before the trial Court. He submitted that the appellants were caught on 1.7.1997 but they were produced before the C.J.M. on 3.7.1997. The currency notes recovered from the possessions of the appellants was common article and it could not be presumed that they were stolen. He stated that when, as per the allegation, Manoj took the money, how the same was recovered in part from Manoj Kumar Singh and Prahlad Singh. He further submitted that as per the allegation, Rs. 11768/ were looted whereas Rs. 3068/ was recovered from the possession of Manoj Kumar Singh. Rs. 7900/ was recovered from the possession of Prahlad Singh which makes a total of Rs. 10968/ and therefore, there is a discrepancy of about Rs. 800/. He further submitted that there is a contradiction with regard to the time of occurrence and the place of seizure. He lastly submitted that a separate case being Pirtand P.S. Case No. 28 of 1997 was registered under the provisions of Arms Act. Therefore, It cannot be said that the prosecution has proved about use of arms in this case and no robbery could be committed without arms. Thus he submitted that the whole case is false. 4. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW 1 is the employee (Peon) of the Bank. PW 3 is the Cashier. PWs 4, 5 and 6 are the villagers. PWs 6/A, 6/B and 7 are the police constables. Thus he submitted that the whole case is false. 4. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW 1 is the employee (Peon) of the Bank. PW 3 is the Cashier. PWs 4, 5 and 6 are the villagers. PWs 6/A, 6/B and 7 are the police constables. PW 8 is a doctor who examined the injuries of the appellants. PW 9 is the Investigating officer and PW 10 is a formal witness. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that this is a full proof case in which the appellants were caught on chase, keys of the Bank, the looted currency notes and the arms along with used and un-used cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and PWs 1 to 7 have fully supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that in such type of case, when there was a Bank robbery in a rural Bank and the appellants were caught on chase, the appellants cannot take advantage of minor contradictions with regard to time of occurrence, place of seizure etc. The oral evidence on the basis of which the contradictions are sought to be shown was recorded about 1-2 years after the occurrence. 6. The Bank employees (PWs 1, 2 and 3) have fully supported the factum of robbery and catching hold of the appellants after chase. They have identified Manoj Kumar Singh in the dock as the person who put revolver on the chest of PW 2 and demanded money on threat. The prosecution has proved the recovery of the revolver with used and un-used cartridges from the appellants. The Bank was locked from out side by the appellants and therefore, there was some delay in chasing and catching them. Therefore, it is not un-natural that the looted money was kept by the appellants in part. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses of the entire occurrence. I am satisfied about the finding recorded by the learned trial Court brushing aside the alleged discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence and place of seizure. The villagers (PWs 4, 5 and 6) who were also independent witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. They have also identified the appellants in dock. The seizure has also been proved by the seizure list witnesses. The evidence is consistent on the point of robbery and apprehending the appellants on chase near Bargad tree at Mandaro village. The villagers (PWs 4, 5 and 6) who were also independent witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. They have also identified the appellants in dock. The seizure has also been proved by the seizure list witnesses. The evidence is consistent on the point of robbery and apprehending the appellants on chase near Bargad tree at Mandaro village. The learned trial Court has rightly drew presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the recovered currency notes from the possession of the appellants were the tooted notes. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 corroborates that the fact that the fardbeyan was recorded in the Bank. It is also corroborated by the IO, PW 9, PWs 2. 6 and 9 and they are consistent with regard to place of seizure. I find no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 7. On the question of sentence, I find that the appellants have committed Bank robbery in a broad day light. When the appellant No. 2 has also taken full part in the robbery, he also deserves the same sentence awarded to appellant No. 1 but keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are father and son and they have no criminal antecedent. I do not wish to disturb the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 8. In my opinion, the prosecution has fully proved its case and it cannot be doubted on the basis of the aforesaid grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The bail granted to appellant No. 2, Prahlad Singh on 13.12.1999 by this Court is cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender in the Court below immediately for serving out the sentence, if not already served out.