Judgment ( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on behalf of two accused-persons Rajesh kumar and Rajendra alias Ajay, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th of May, 2002 passed by the additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, in sessions Case No. 74/2001, whereby each of the accused-appellants has been convicted under S. 395,. P. C. , to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months additional, simple imprisonment and, under S. 397,. P. C. , to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) P. W. 10 Shiv Singh recorded a parcha bayan Exhibit P-l of Sukhpal Singh (P. W. 1) at Bed No. 9. of Surgical Ward, Government hospital, Bundi, wherein it was stated that on 9th of February, 2000, he was on duty along with Bhanwar Lal, Constable, at ramganj Balaji Petrol Pump and at about 3. 30 at night two persons armed with weapons entered in the petrol pump and committed a dacoity they snatched 30-35 thousand rupees from Surendra, the salesman of the petrol pump. It was also stated that other accused-persons were standing outside the Petrol Pump. ( 3 ) ON the basis of this parcha bayan, an fir No. 27/2000 (Exhibit P-25) was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bundi under Ss. 395 and 397,. P. C. and investigation commenced. ( 4 ) AS per the statement of P. W. 1 1 satyabal Singh, the accused-persons were arrested on 24th of September, 2000. in case No. 267/2000, registered under Ss. 323, 332, 353,342, 307, 394 and 34,. P. C. and under Ss. 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms act, at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota, which was relating to Das Petrol Pump, and during investigation of that case it came to the knowledge of Satyapal Singh (P. W. 11) that these accused-persons committed dacoity at Balaji Petrol Pump, Bund. also for which the present FIR No. 27/2000 was registered. The accused-appellants were thereafter arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-7) dated 1 Oth of December, 2000. also for which the present FIR No. 27/2000 was registered. The accused-appellants were thereafter arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-7) dated 1 Oth of December, 2000. Thereafter the accused-Rajendra gave an information (Exhibit P-9) under S. 27 of the Evidence act on 14th of Decemebr, 2000, about magazine of rifle and in pursuance of that information the magazine of rifle was recovered at the instance of accused-Rajendra alias ajay vide recovery memo Exhibit P-10 dated 14th of December, 2000. The identification parade was also conducted and, after completion of investigation, a challan was filed against both the accused persons. The trial Court framed charge for the above offences, which was denied by accused-persons. Thereafter, the trial was conducted and after completion thereof the accused-persons were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold contentions. The first contention is that even as per the prosecution case there were only two persons who committed dacoity and in absence of five persons in number, the offence under S. 395 or 397 of the IPC cannot be said to be made out. In support of his contention, he referred the parcha bayan (Exhibit P-l) dated 10th of February, 2000, wherein P. W. 1 Sukhpal singh has stated that two persons entered in the petrol pump and committed dacoity and they snatched 30-35 thousand rupees from Surendra. the salesman of the petrol pump, therefore, in absence of five persons in number, the learned trial Court committed an illegality in convicting the accused persons for the above offences. the salesman of the petrol pump, therefore, in absence of five persons in number, the learned trial Court committed an illegality in convicting the accused persons for the above offences. ( 6 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-persons only on the basis of evidence relating to identification of the accused-persons, which was not proved properly and the same was doubtful and in support of his contention he referred the statement of prosecution witnesses particularly the statement of P. W. 6 Rajendra, who in his cross-examination, admitted that the accused-persons were brought at the petrol pump and they were shown to him earlier before the identification parade took place, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the identification parade in the present case is doubtful and in case the said evidence is discarded then there is no other evidence to connect the accused- persons with the crime and they are liable to be acquitted from the charge framed against them. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and the order passed by the trial Court and, by referring the prosecution evidence, contended that from Che evidence on the record it is clear that there were not only five but six persons were present at the time of committing the offence of dacoity and further that the evidence of identification is legal and there is no lacunae in it. He contended that even if P. W. 6 rajendra, in his cross-examination, admitted that the accused persons were shown to him earlier to identification parade took place, it does not mean that other evidence in this regard is to be discarded. He referred the statement of P. W. 1 Sukhpal and P. W. 2 bhanwar, who have identified the. accused- persons, therefore, he contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. ( 9 ) EXHIBIT P-l. the parcha bayan of sukhpal (P. W. 1) was recorded on 10th of february, 2000. by P. W. 10 Shivsingh at Bed no. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. ( 9 ) EXHIBIT P-l. the parcha bayan of sukhpal (P. W. 1) was recorded on 10th of february, 2000. by P. W. 10 Shivsingh at Bed no. 9 of Surgical Ward, Government Hospital, bundi, wherein he stated the details of incident relating to dacoity committed at ramganj Balaji Petrol Pump, and about the injuries sustained by him as well as another injured person Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 2 ). The fir (Exhibit P-25) was registered for the offence under Ss. 395 and 397 of the. P. C. The accused-persons were arrested on 10th of December, 2000, vide arrest memos Exhibit p-6 and Exhibit P-7. The site plan (Exhibit P-8) was prepared in the case. During investigation of the case. the accused- rajendra gave an information (Exhibit P-9) on 14th of December, 2000, while he was in custody, about magazine of rifle used in the present Incident and in pursuance of the said information the magazine of rifle was recovered on 14th of December, 2000. vide recovery memo, Exhibit P-10. Thereafter, the identification parade was also conducted in respect of both accused-persons. Accused- rajesh was rightly identified by Sukhpal (P. W. 1) vide identification parade memo exhibit P-2, by Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 2) vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-4. by surendra Sharma (P. W. 5) vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-18. Accused- rajendra was rightly identified by Sukhpal (P. W. 1) vide identification parade memo exhibit P-3. by Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 2) vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-5, by surendra Sharma (P. W. 5) vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-l7 and by rajendra (P. W. 6) vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-20. ( 10 ) THE identification parade was conducted in presence of P. W, 9 Asha Kumari sharma, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, bund. who has proved the identification parade conducted by her. e. Exhibit P-2 to exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-l7 to Exhibit P- 20. ( 10 ) THE identification parade was conducted in presence of P. W, 9 Asha Kumari sharma, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, bund. who has proved the identification parade conducted by her. e. Exhibit P-2 to exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-l7 to Exhibit P- 20. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 Sukhpal Singh, P. W. 2 bhanwar Lal, P. W. 5 Surendra Kumar sharma and P. W. 6 Rajendra wen: the eyewitnesses to the incident, P. W. 1 Sukhpal singh has narrated the entire story of the incident and he rightly identified both the accused-persons. P. W. 2 Bhanwar Lal also identified both the accused-persons rightly during identification parade. In cross-examination p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 denied the fact that accused-persons were shown to them before identification parade took place in the matter on 2-1-2001. P. W. 3 Jagannath singh the S. H. O. , has proved the other documentary evidence of the prosecution including the arrest memo Exhibit P-6 and exhibit P-7, the site plan Exhibit P-8, the information under S. 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-9 ). the recovery memo of magazine mark-4, 303 Bore (Exhibit P-10) and the map of the place from where the recovery of magazine was made (Exhibit P-l 1 ). ( 12 ) P. W. 4 Vinod Singh has proved Exhibit P-10 and Exhibit P-11. P. W. 5 Surendra Kumar Sharma was working at Balaji Petrol pump, where the incident took place, therefore, he was also eye-witness and he has also narrated the story of incident and he rightly identified both the accused-persons before P. W. 9 Asha Kumari Sharma as well as before the trial Court. P. W. 5 has also proved Exhibit P-12 to Exhibit P-18. ( 13 ) P,w. 6 Rajendra Kumar did not identify accused-Rajesh but he rightly identified accused-Rajendra vide identification parade memo Exhibit P-20. He was also eye-witness to the incident and proved the prosecution case. P. W. 7 Dr. O. P. Verma, who medically examined both the injured persons P. W. 1 sukhpal Singh and P. W. 2 Bhanwar Lal, proved their injury reports and x-ray report. Exhibit P-21 is the injury report of Sukhpal singh and Exhibit P-22 is his x-ray report. Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P-24 are the injury report and x-ray report of P. W. 2 bhanwar Lal. Exhibit P-21 is the injury report of Sukhpal singh and Exhibit P-22 is his x-ray report. Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P-24 are the injury report and x-ray report of P. W. 2 bhanwar Lal. P. W. 8 Mirza Galib has proved exhibit P-1. the parcha bayan of injured sukhpal and FIR Exhibit P-25. P. W. 9 Asha kumari Sharma. the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, no. 1, Bundi, proved the identification parade memo Exhibit P-2 to Exhibit P-5 and exhibit P-l7 to Exhibit P-20. P. W. 10 shivsingh has also corroborated the prosecution evidence, P. W. 11 Satyapal Singh stated before the trial Court that he arrested accused-persons in the case No. 267/2000. registered at the Police Station Udyog Nagar. Kota. ( 14 ) SO far as participation of five or more persons in the Incident is concerned, it is clear from the statement of P. W, i Sukhpal singh, P. W. 2 Bhanwar Singh, P. W. 5 surendra and P. W. 6 Rajendra that there were six persons present at the time of commission of the offence and out of them, two persons entered in the office of petrol pump and committed dacoity and snatched 35-40 thousand rupees from the salesman. ( 15 ) THE above discussion of prosecution evidence reveals that there were sufficient evidence of idetnification parade of the accused-appellants and it is also clear that more than five persons were there who participated in the incident. ( 16 ) I have also examined the finding of the learned trial Court who has discussed the prosecution evidence, in detail, and has recorded a finding that there is sufficient evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty for the above charges. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned trial Court. ( 17 ) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in both the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .