Judgment : ( 1 ) BOTH the appeals were taken together for hearing and are being disposed of by the common order as they arise out of the same case bearing Sessions Case no. 14 of 1998/157 of 1998. Both the appellants, namely, Md. Sayeed Alam alias shaheed Alam and Md. Ramjan Ansari and also one accused Subodh Kumar were put on trial for an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned sessions Judge found them guilty under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to undergo R. I. for 2 years 4 months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one jitendra Kurmar Bhagat (P. W. 3) came to village, Sripur on his Rajdoot Motorcycle bearing registration No. BR-1oa 1787 along with his friend, Baikunth Prasad for realizing money from some person and after realizing rs. 6000/- while they were returning reached near a bridge 500 yard away from godda Parihar Village at 9. 15 A. M. they found two persons standing on either side of the road who got their motorcycle stopped by means of rope and in the meantime two other persons came over there and thereafter on the point of a pistol they made the informant and his friend to get down from the motorcycle and snatched Rs. 6,000/-, wrist watch, silver chain, three silver rings from the informant. They also snatched Rs. 3990/- and one black small bag having lungi in it from Baikunth Prasad then all the four by riding motorcycle went away. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the informant (P. W. 3) gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 5) before the Officer-incharge of Meharma (Thakurgangti) Police station, upon which a case was registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) FURTHER case of the prosecution is that the then Officer-in-charge of Meharma (Thakurgangti) Police Station, namely, Syed md. Ali Rijvi (P. W. 9), who happens to be the investigating Officer of this case, informed immediately to all the Police Stations, including the Meharma Police Station that three criminals after looting motorcycle, have proceeded towards Meharma. ( 4 ) FURTHER case of the prosecution is that the then Officer-in-charge of Meharma (Thakurgangti) Police Station, namely, Syed md. Ali Rijvi (P. W. 9), who happens to be the investigating Officer of this case, informed immediately to all the Police Stations, including the Meharma Police Station that three criminals after looting motorcycle, have proceeded towards Meharma. On getting this wireless message, the Officer-in-charge of meharma Police Station, namely, Sanjay kumar Singh (P. W. 7) and Randhir Singh (P. W. 8) came at the road and spotted the said motorcycle with three persons riding on it and got them stopped P. W. 6 then seized the motorcycle as well as wrist watch, bag containing lungi under seizure-list (Ext. 4), upon which all the three accused persons put their signature. When this information was given to P. W. 9. Officer-in-charge of thakurgangti Police Station he came over there and arrested them. ( 5 ) DURING investigation all the three accused persons were put on T. I. Parade and the informant (P. W. 3) in course of Test Identification Parade identified all of them. Apart from that, the looted articles were also put on for identification conducted by P. W. 2, arjun Rajak. Before whom Baikunth Prasad as well as informant (P. W. 3) identified the articles seized and the T. I. Charts prepared, which have been marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1 /1. ( 6 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet whereupon cognizance of the offence was taken. Subsequently when the case was committed to the Court of Session the charge was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the prosecution led its evidences the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, but they denied all the incriminating circumstances. However, the appellant, Syed alam @ Shaheed Alam came with defence that he was going on a vehicle and on the matter of payment of fare there was quarrel with the conductor and the conductor took him to the police station and then the police falsely implicated him in this case. The defence witnesses, namely, Nija-muddin ansari has been examined on behalf of the accused, Syed Alam in support of the defence taken by Md. Syeed Alam. The defence witnesses, namely, Nija-muddin ansari has been examined on behalf of the accused, Syed Alam in support of the defence taken by Md. Syeed Alam. However, other two accused took a plea that they had taken lift on a motorcycle being driven by syed Alam without knowing that it was stolen one. ( 7 ) THE trial Court on the consideration of the materials brought on the record on behalf of the prosecution, did find both the appellants as well as Subodh Kumar guilty under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as a aforesaid. ( 8 ) MR. P. K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for both the appellants, submitted that according to the P. W. 3. , the informant when the accused persons were arrested by the Officer-in Charge of Meharma Police station he went there along with Officer of thakurgangti Police Station and as such identification made by the informant during T. I. Parade or in the Court loses his sanctity. It was further submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 6,7,8, who have claimed to have apprehended the appellants are not worth reliable as there is contradiction on the point of seizure of the articles. In this regard it was submitted that P. W. 6, on one hand, says that he seized the articles from possession of Md. Syeed, but the other witnesses in their testimonial have staled that articles were seized from the dickey of the motorcycle. ( 9 ) BOTH the grounds taken for assailing the order of conviction, in my view, does not affect the case of the prosecution that the appellants and the other accused committed road robbery. I may reiterate the case of the prosecution as has been deposed by the witnesses that while the informant P. W. 3 was returning from Village on the motorcycle with his friend Baikunth Prasad and reached near a bridge 500 yards away from godda Prihar village they were accosted by four persons who looted away the money as well as the other articles. Thereafter the matter was immediately reported to the p. W. 9, Officer-in-charge of Thakurgangti police station, who immediately sent the message to all the Police Stations, including the Mehrama police station about the commission of the offence. Thereafter on receiving wireless message at 10. Thereafter the matter was immediately reported to the p. W. 9, Officer-in-charge of Thakurgangti police station, who immediately sent the message to all the Police Stations, including the Mehrama police station about the commission of the offence. Thereafter on receiving wireless message at 10. 15 A. M. , officer-in-charge of Mehrama Police Station (P. W. 6) along with his associates, Arun singh and Randhir Singh (P. Ws. 7 and 8)laid a raid on the road and on spotting three persons riding on a motorcycle got them stopped and looted motorcycle as well as looted articles were seized under Ext. 4. I do not find anything in the evidence of P. W. s. 6, 7 and 8 todiscard the testimony and the evidences of these three persons establishes that the accused persons were immediately apprehended after the occurrence and in that view of the matter there would be strong presumption that the appellants along with other accused committed the offence of robbery. That apart P. W. S in course of the T. I. Parade as well as in the Court identified these two appellants as well as other accused persons, who had committed the robbery. Even if this aspect of the matter gets diluted by the fact that P. W. S went to the Mehrama police Station after the appellants and other accused were apprehended and saw them it does not affect the substratum of the case in view of the fact that the appellants and other accused were immediately apprehended after occurrence, with the looted articles whereby the presumption can easily be drawn that the appellants and the other accused committed the offence of robbery. Furthermore, I do find that the seized articles were put on T. I. Parade, which was conducted by P. W. 2 and those articles were identified by Bainkuth Pd. though Bainkuth has not been examined, but the indepen-dent witnesses, Shankar Pd. Sah (P. W. 4) and dhaneshwar Oraon (P. W. 5) have specifically deposed that the seized articles were recovered in their presence. So far the other grounds regarding contradiction is concerned, I do not find that those contradictions are having any kind of bearing upon the substratum of the case and as such it does not affect the prosecution case. The defence taken by the appellants itself is contradictory as one hand Md. So far the other grounds regarding contradiction is concerned, I do not find that those contradictions are having any kind of bearing upon the substratum of the case and as such it does not affect the prosecution case. The defence taken by the appellants itself is contradictory as one hand Md. Sayeed Alam has said that he was produced by the conductor before the police as some altercation was taken whereas the other two accused persons have taken the plea that they took lift on the motorcycle being driven by Md. Sayeed Alam without knowing that it was stolen one and therefore these contradictory statements itself demolished the case of the defence. ( 10 ) THUS I do find that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals and hence both the appeals stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .