PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals preferred by the three appellants separately are directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, diamond Harbour in ST. No. 12 (6)04 (SC No. 17 (5)04) thereby sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each i. d. to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I. P. C. ). The appellants preferred three separate appeals against the same judgment and order of conviction and we intend to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that the de facto complainant sahadeb Naskar (P. W. 1) on 25. 2. 04 at about 8 a. m. in the morning started for Burrabazar in Calcutta for purchasing items for his shop situated at mandir Bazar and boarded a bus of route No. SD-18 bearing registration no. WB-19/1416. When the bus reached at "dhorar More' of Usthi, four unknown persons boarded the bus and searched for someone and finally came before him. One of those persons brandished a fire arm and another person placed a dagger on his throat and those miscreants dragged him out of the bus and took away him to a nearby field crossing a wooden bridge. There the miscreants snatched from him Rs. 1,01,000/- and out of the said amount Rs. 65,000/- was kept in a cream coloured cotton pouch or small bag over which his name was written with green thread and the said cream cotton pouch was tied with his waist. Rs. 30,000/- in three bundles of Rs. 100/- denomination notes wrapped in old vest were kept inside his vest near abdomen and Rs. 6,000/- more of the denomination of rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- notes wrapped in a paper and kept in a nylon bag was kept inside his bag and it was also snatched from him. His HMT wrist watch which was snatched from him had the word 's' of his name inscribed in Bengali on the dial or case of the wrist watch and a silver ring fitted with red coral with his name Sahadeb inscribed on the ring was also snatched. His HMT wrist watch which was snatched from him had the word 's' of his name inscribed in Bengali on the dial or case of the wrist watch and a silver ring fitted with red coral with his name Sahadeb inscribed on the ring was also snatched. P. W. 1 submitted the written complaint/f. I. R. on 25. 2. 04 before the O. C. , mandir Bazar P. S. and finally the same was sent to Usthi P. S. and on the basis of it U. sthi P. S. Case No. 30 dated 25. 2. 04 under Section 392 of the i. P. C. was started against unknown miscreants. During investigation police apprehended five persons including the present three appellants and from the appellant Nasiruddin Gazi, the HMT Kohinoor wrist watch and the silver ring fitted with red stone belonging to the informant were recovered. From the appellant Ayub Ali Peada Rs. 65,000/- kept in a cream coloured tabil' i. e. pouch over which there was name of informant Sahadeb written with green thread was recovered. The said Rs. 65,000/- was recovered from ayub Ali Peada on the basis of statement of Satyajit Purkait leading to recovery of the stolen money which was snatched away from the informant at the time of alleged dacoity. After completing investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the I. P. C. In the trial that followed the accused persons basanta Mistri and Jahir Jamadar were acquitted. The three appellants before us in these appeals were acquitted of the charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the I. P. C. but, they were convicted under Section 412 of the I. P. C. and were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment as indicated above and, hence these appeals. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 15 witnesses namely, P. W. 1 Sahadeb Naskar (the informant-cum-victim), p. W. 2 Shyamal Purkait, P. W. 3 Basari Mohan Sardar, P. W. 4 Abdul Hai sk. , P. W. 5 Nizamuddin Sk. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 15 witnesses namely, P. W. 1 Sahadeb Naskar (the informant-cum-victim), p. W. 2 Shyamal Purkait, P. W. 3 Basari Mohan Sardar, P. W. 4 Abdul Hai sk. , P. W. 5 Nizamuddin Sk. , P. W. 6 Zakir Hossain, P. W. 7 Prabir Naskar, p. W. 8 Nikhil Mallick, P. W. 9 Biswanath Mondal, P. W. 10 Sunil Kumar mondal, P. W. 11 Chandan Ray, P. W. 12 Sisir Kumar Meyur (Judicial magistrate), P. W. 13 Bibhuti Narayan Singh (another Judicial Magistrate), investigating Officer (in short I. O.) P. W. 14 Avijit Banerjee and P. W. 15 biswajit Banerjee (part I. O, ). ( 4 ) OUT of the aforenamed 15 witnesses we find that the prosecution case rests on the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 3, P. W. 14 and P. W. 15. P. W. 2, p. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 6, P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 were declared hostile witnesses as they did not support the prosecution case. Though these six witnesses were declared hostile witnesses we would refer to their evidence in our judgment as part of their evidence is in favour of prosecution and the law is well-settled that evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be wholly rejected. P. W. 7 attended the T. I. parade and also identified one suspect in the T. l. parade but, failed to remember the name of the accused whom he identified in the T. I. parade, and in Court also, he did not recognise/identify any accused. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and the reasons remained unknown to us. P. W. 10 is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who received the written complaint from P. W. 1 and on the basis of it started the Usthi P. S. Case No. 30 dated 25. 2. 04 and filled up the formal FIR (Ext. 5 ). P. W. 11 is the scribe of the written complaint/f. I. R. submitted by P. W. 1 before the Police Officer. His evidence reveals that he scribed it out according to the instruction of P. W. 1 and denied the defence suggestion that he wrote it out as per instruction of the Police officer. 5 ). P. W. 11 is the scribe of the written complaint/f. I. R. submitted by P. W. 1 before the Police Officer. His evidence reveals that he scribed it out according to the instruction of P. W. 1 and denied the defence suggestion that he wrote it out as per instruction of the Police officer. ( 5 ) P. W. 12 is the learned Judicial Magistrate who held T. I. parade in respect of two accused persons who are not before us in this appeal. Accordingly, the evidence of P. W. 12 is not important in this appeal. P. W. 13 is the another learned Judicial Magistrate who held T. I. parade of three articles which were identified by P. W. 1 as his articles which were snatched away in dacoity and the articles which P. W. 1 identified in the T. I. parade were one tabil', a kind of bag in which the stolen money was kept, one h. M. T. wrist watch and one silver ring fitted with red stone. P. W. 14 and p. W. 15 are the I. Os. of this case and their evidence reveals recovery of the articles snatched from P. W. 1 in the dacoity and the articles were recovered pursuant to the statement of these three appellants. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 stated that on 12th Falgun, 1410 B. S. he was proceeding to Calcutta for purchasing grocery articles by a bus of route No. SD-18. When the bus reached at 'dhorar More'4/5 miscreants boarded the bus and brought him down from the bus at the point of fire arm and dagger and forcibly took him away to a paddy field. The miscreants robbed him of rs. 95,000/- which was kept in a cream coloured bag over which his name was written with green thread. Rs. 6,000/- more which was kept in a nylon bag was in his hand and the same was also snatched away. The miscreants snatched away his H. M. T. wrist watch over which starting word of his name "s" was inscribed in Bengali on the dial and also his silver ring which was fitted with red stone and over the ring also his name Sahadeb in Bengali was inscribed. The miscreants snatched away his H. M. T. wrist watch over which starting word of his name "s" was inscribed in Bengali on the dial and also his silver ring which was fitted with red stone and over the ring also his name Sahadeb in Bengali was inscribed. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 in his evidence further stated that he attended the T. I. parade of articles and identified his snatched away wrist watch, finger ring and the bag in which money was kept. The finger ring had his name sahadeb in Bengali inscribed and on the back side dial of wrist watch first letter 's' for his name Sahadeb in Bengali was inscribed and the bag in which money was kept his name in Bengali was written with green thread. After the incident he lodged the written complaint/fir which was scribed by one Bhaja, a tea stall owner. P. W. 11 Chandan Roy @ Bhaja is the said person who scribed the written complaint. P. W. 1 in Court could not recognise the miscreants who forcibly brought him down from the bus at the point of fire arm. In his cross-examination we have not find any material worthwhile for mentioning and in our opinion, P. W. 1 was not cross-examined at length and only some suggestions were put to him which are not at all destructive of the prosecution case. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 were declared hostile witnesses no doubt, but their evidence gives us important fact which favours the prosecution. P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 stated that on 25. 2. 04 they were travelling in the said bus of route No. SD-18. When the bus arrived at 'dhorar More', a few persons boarded the bus and they brought down P. W. 1 from the bus showing 'machine' i. e. fire arm. P. W. 3 was more specific as he stated that 4/5 miscreants entered in the bus and brought down the passenger shov. mg him fire arm. In Court P. W. 3 identified the appellant Satyajit Purkait as one of those miscreants and also disclosed his name as Satyajit Purkait. P. W. 3 was also a witness of seizure of H. M. T. wrist watch and the silver finger ring which were recovered from the appellant Nasiruddin Gazi. mg him fire arm. In Court P. W. 3 identified the appellant Satyajit Purkait as one of those miscreants and also disclosed his name as Satyajit Purkait. P. W. 3 was also a witness of seizure of H. M. T. wrist watch and the silver finger ring which were recovered from the appellant Nasiruddin Gazi. P. W. 3 in his evidence did not State about the prosecution case concerning recovery of the articles from Nasiruddin Gazi and for this reason he was declared hostile. P. W. 3 in his cross-examination denied the defence suggestion that he falsely implicated Satyajit Purkait according to the instruction of the Police Officer. ( 9 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 6, P. W. 7, P. W. 8, P. W. 9, P. W. 10 and P. W. 11 are not of importance as their evidence do not reveal any material or important fact either in favour of prosecution or in favour of defence. But, it appears that P. W. 5 was a witness of seizure when the stolen money was recovered from the house of Ayub Ali Peada pursuant to the statement of appellant Satyajit Purkait. P. W. 5 did not support the prosecution case concerning the fact of recovery of the money, but identified his signature (Ext. 4) on the seizure list. The same is the evidence of P. W. 6 who did not support the prosecution case relating to fact of recovery of stolen money, but admitted his signature (Ext. 4/1) on the seizure list. P. W. 8 did not support the prosecution case relating to recovery of wrist watch and silver finger ring from Nasiruddin Gazi, but admitted his signature on the seizure list which was marked Ext. 3/1. There was no serious cross-examination of these witnesses by the accused persons. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 14 is most important in this case. His evidence reveals that he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and he recorded statement of P. W. 1 who gave him particulars of the articles which were snatched away from his possession. On 26. 2. 04 at 4. 55 a. m. he arrested the appellant Satyajit Purkait and recorded his statement and forwarded the said accused to the learned Magsitrate praying for police custody which was allowed till 8. 3. 04. On 26. 2. 04 at 4. 55 a. m. he arrested the appellant Satyajit Purkait and recorded his statement and forwarded the said accused to the learned Magsitrate praying for police custody which was allowed till 8. 3. 04. He recorded statement of the said accused on 27. 2. 04 while he was in police custody and, the appellant satyajit made statement to him disclosing that he had kept the stolen money under the cot in the left side room of the house of accused Ayub Ali peada. In order to work out the information he along with other Police officers, two public witnesses and the accused Satyajit Purkait went to the house of Ayub Ali Peada and Rs. 65,000/- kept in a 'tabil' i. e. small pouch or bag was recovered. The said pouch or small cream coloured bag had the name of the informant Sahadeb written with green thread. The said bag containing money was recovered from the bed room of the accused Ayub Ali Peada under the cot as shown by the accused Satyajit purkait. He seized the said money preparing a seizure list in presence of witnesses. The bag or pouch was marked material Ext. III. He also arrested the accused Ayub Ali Peada at the time of recovery of money. The accused satyajit Purkait made his signature over the seizure list and the accused ayub Ali Peada put his LTI over the seizure list and the seizure list was marked Ext. 4/2. He arrested accused Basanta Mistry and Jahir Jamadar on 28. 2. 04 and submitted a prayer for T. I. parade. He arrested accused nasiruddin Gazi on 12. 3. 04 and forwarded him to Court and prayed for his police custody and Nasiruddin was remanded to police custody till 23. 3. 04. Nasiruddin made a statement to him disclosing that the wrist watch and the finger ring snatched away from the informant were given to him by the accused Satyajit and the said wrist watch and the finger ring were kept by him under the bed of his room and he would produce the said articles if he was taken to his house. The statement of accused Nasiruddin leading to recovery of wrist watch and the finger ring was marked Ext. 10. On 23. 3. The statement of accused Nasiruddin leading to recovery of wrist watch and the finger ring was marked Ext. 10. On 23. 3. 04 O. C. , Usthi P. S. Biswajit Banerjee (P. W. 15) seized the old h. M. T. Kohinoor wrist watch over which the first letter of name of Sahadeb "s" in Bengali was inscribed and the silver ring fitted with red stone was also recovered and over the ring the name of the informant Sahadeb was inscribed and, on one side it was 'saha' and on the other side it was inscribed as 'deb' in Bengali. The said articles were seized by preparing a seizure list in presence of witnesses. He also submitted prayer for T. I. parade of articles. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 395/397/412 of the I. P. C. ( 11 ) HIS cross-examination shows that he submitted charge-sheet against five accused persons. Some contradictions between F. I. R. and evidence of P. W. 1 were taken as well as contradiction between evidence of witnesses in Court and their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code. He admitted that the seizure list witnesses namely, Zakir Hussain and Nizamuddin Sk. are not residents of Kulpi P. S. where lies the house of Ayub Ali Peada. He denied the defence suggestion that the appellant satyajit Purkait did not make any statement to him leading to recovery of the money of dacoity. His evidence reveals that he did not prepare sketch map of house of Ayub Ali Peada and did not mention how many rooms are there in his house. In our opinion, these cross-examinations are of no use and not material at all to destroy the prosecution case. He admitted that in the seizure list he did not mention number of notes as well as denominations of the notes which were seized and we think that failure to do so by the I. O. does not affect the evidentiary value of seizure of stolen money which was recovered from the house of Ayub Ali Peada pursuant to statement of appellant Satyajit Purkait. He did not contact with Pradhan and other members of gram Panchayat of Bangram village and in our opinion, this does not discredit the fact of search and seizure as well as its value when two independent witnesses were present at the time of search and seizure. He did not contact with Pradhan and other members of gram Panchayat of Bangram village and in our opinion, this does not discredit the fact of search and seizure as well as its value when two independent witnesses were present at the time of search and seizure. He denied that the accused Nasiruddin did not make any statement leading to recovery of wrist watch and finger ring. He denied the defence suggestion that he obtained signature of witnesses in blank papers and subsequently manufactured the seizure lists. He stated that the informant Sahadeb did not State to him that his name was written on the bag with green thread and also that he did not State to him that colour of the tabil i. e. bag was cream. We do not find any reason for putting such questions to the I. O. during cross-examination as such cross-examination was without any aim and purpose. In the F. I. R. it was clearly mentioned that the tabil' or the pouch in which money was kept was cream coloured and over it name of the informant Sahadeb was written with green thread in Bengali. In our opinion, cross-examination of P. W. 14 was done but, without any specific defence case and cross-examinatio'n made was nothing but beating the bush without any aim. Such cross-examination did not destroy the creditworthiness of P. W. 14. ( 12 ) P. W. 15 in his evidence stated that on 25. 2. 04 he was posted as o. C. , Usthi P. S. and he endorsed this case to P. W. 14 for investigation. As p. W. 14 was on leave for few days between 19. 3. 04 to 23. 3. 04 he investigated the said case. In course of investigation pursuant to the statement of accused Nasiruddin Gazi @ Nasir he had been to the house of the said accused in village Sarberia along with accused and witnesses. The accused Nasir produced before him one white dial old H. M. T. Kohinoor wrist watch over which the Bengali word 's' was engraved on the back side of dial and he also produced one silver ring fitted with red stone with 'saha' inscribed on one side and 'deb' inscribed on the other side of the ring which was the name of informant Sahadeb. The Kohinoor wrist watch and silver ring were marked material Exts. I and II respectively. The Kohinoor wrist watch and silver ring were marked material Exts. I and II respectively. He seized those articles in presence of witnesses and the accused Nasir by preparing a seizure list and the accused Nasir put his LTI on the seizure list and the witnesses Basari Sardar and Nikhil Mallick signed over the seizure list. The statement made by accused Nasiruddin leading to recovery of wrist watch and silver ring was marked Ext. 10 and seizure list Ext. 3/2. We find that there was no specific cross-examination of P. W. 15 except some suggestions to him which he denied. He denied the defence suggestion that Nasiruddin did not make any statement to him leading to recovery of the wrist watch and silver ring or, that the witnesses were not present at the time of seizure or, that Nasiruddin did not tell him that accused Satyajit told him to keep those articles. ( 13 ) LEARNED Advocates for the appellants submitted before us that charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the I. P. C. failed and the appellants were acquitted of the said charges. When the main charge under Sections 395/397 of the I. P. C. failed, the other charge under Section 412 of the i. P. C. cannot be sustained. Out of the five accused persons two were acquitted in respect of all the charges and these three appellants were convicted under Section 412 of the I. P. C. which cannot be substantiated after failure of the prosecution to establish the charge of dacoity. The story of dacoity automatically fails when out of the five, two were acquitted and the law is well settled that in order to attract elements of dacoity presence of five accused persons is the sine qua non at the time of committing offence. Learned Advocate for the appellant Ayub AN Peada placed before us a decision namely, Ram Lakhan v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1983 sc 352 in support of his contention. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant Nasiruddin Gazi made almost the same argument and further contended that in the F. IR. the brand or name of the wrist watch was not mentioned. He also referred to question nos. 4 and 5 of the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant Nasiruddin Gazi made almost the same argument and further contended that in the F. IR. the brand or name of the wrist watch was not mentioned. He also referred to question nos. 4 and 5 of the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. wherein the appellant Nasiruddin stated that nothing was recovered from him and he was innocent. It was submitted by him that the seizure witnesses in their evidence did not support the fact of seizure of the articles from the appellant and all the witnesses were hostile. The evidence of the sole Police Officer is not sufficient to establish the charge under Section 412 of the I. P. C. ( 15 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant Satyajit Purkait submitted that the conviction under Section 412 of the I. P. C. cannot stand when all the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the I. P. C. and the prosecution story of dacoity of money, wrist watch and ring of P. W. 1 was not established. The driver and conductor of the bus were not examined to prove the foundation of the prosecution story. The occurrence took place within Usthi P. S. but the F. I. R. was addressed to the O. C. , Mandirbazar P. S. Not a single passenger of the bus was examined to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 as well as the prosecution story of dacoity in the bus. The alleged statement leading to recovery of money and involvement of Satyajit Purkait is inadmissible in evidence. The description of the bag as mentioned in F. I. R. differs from the 'description of the bag mentioned in the seizure list. P. W. 1 was not asked to attend the T. I. parade of suspecfs for the purpose of identification of the miscreants who had committed the incident of dacoity. This accused in his answer to question No. 10 during examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. clearly stated that the O. C. filed a false charge-sheet against him without proper investigation on the basis of a false complaint. There is no evidence at all in respect of the balance amount of P. W. 1 and there is no evidence also whether the balance amount was recovered or not. P. C. clearly stated that the O. C. filed a false charge-sheet against him without proper investigation on the basis of a false complaint. There is no evidence at all in respect of the balance amount of P. W. 1 and there is no evidence also whether the balance amount was recovered or not. There is no cogent evidence to show that the recovered amount was in fact the amount which was snatched away. Moreover, there was no evidence to establish that the appellant kept or retained the stolen article knowing them to be the stolen property of dacoity. The prosecution thus failed to establish the charge under Section 412 of the I. P. C. against the appellants. The appellants accordingly should be acquitted of the charge after setting aside the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. ( 16 ) MR. S. K. Mallick, learned Advocate on behalf of the State submitted that in order to establish charge under Section 412 of the I. P. C. it requires to establish whether the articles were stolen or snatched away and whether the said articles were recovered and whether those articles were recovered pursuant to the statement of any accused or general recovery during investigation, search and seizure. If articles were recovered pursuant to the statement of the accused the same is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. From evidence it is well settled that the appellant Satyajit is the brain behind the entire incident and he was even identified by P. W. 3. The money was recovered from the room of Ayub Ali Peada under his cot pursuant to the statement of Satyajit purkait leading to recovery. Ext. 10 is important which is the statement of other appellant Nasiruddin Gazi leading to recovery of wrist watch and silver ring. Though the witnesses of seizure in their evidence did not specifically state about prosecution case on the fact of seizure but, the said witnesses did not deny their signatures over seizure lists and rather identified their signatures on the seizure lists. The evidence of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 are very important as they were the Police Officers who made the recovery pursuant to the statement of the appellants. The evidence of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 are very important as they were the Police Officers who made the recovery pursuant to the statement of the appellants. Evidence of p. W. 14 reveals that before incident he did not know any of the appellants and naturally, question of falsely implicating the appellants in this case does not arise. The evidence of Pol-ice Officers has the same value like evidence of any other normal witness. During cross-examination no serious omission, contradiction or irregularity transpired which can impair the value of evidence of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15. ( 17 ) MR. Mallick further submitted that Section 412 of the I. P. C. is a completely distinct offence and it has no connection with the charge under section 395 of the I. P. C. Even if there was no charge under Sections 395, 397 of the I. P. C. the conviction under Section 412 of the I. P. C. would have been proper if the elements were there to establish the charge under section 412 of the I. P. C. In the instant matter from evidence, the conscious possession of all the three appellants in respect of the stolen articles were convincingly established and accordingly the prosecution was able to establish the elements of Section 412 of the I. P. C. There was no cross-examination that the signatures of the accused persons over the seizure lists were taken forcibly or that the articles were not recovered from the places as mentioned in the seizure lists. There is no evidence that the statements of the appellants leading to recovery were taken from them by force or by putting them under threat. The evidence of the witnesses, the circumstances as well as fact of recovery of stolen articles pursuant to the statement of appellants clearly prove that the appellants were guilty under Section 412 of the I. P. C. There is no ground to set aside the conviction and the learned trial Court rightly sentenced the appellants. ( 18 ) WE have carefully perused both oral and documentary evidence the materials-on-record and considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. ( 18 ) WE have carefully perused both oral and documentary evidence the materials-on-record and considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. The decision in Ram Lakhan v. State of u. P. (supra) placed before us on behalf of the appellants is not at all applicable as in the reported decision charge and conviction both were under Section 395 of the I. P. C. In the reported decision eight accused persons faced the trial and the appellant was convicted while all other accused persons were acquitted. Considering that aspect the Supreme court observed that conviction of the appellant alone under Section 395 of the I. P. C. is unsustainable as in order to invoke elements of Section 395 of I. P. C. an assembly of five persons is necessary. In the present appeal the appellants were convicted under Section 412 of the I. P. C. They were acquitted of the charge under Sections 395 and 397 of the i. P. C. and the State did not prefer any appeal against their acquittal under sections 395/397 of the I. P. C. In our opinion, Section 412 of I. P. C. is a completely distinct separate offence. An accused can be convicted under section 412 of I. P. C. if the essential ingredients of that section are present before the Court though the said accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 395 of the I. P. C. ( 19 ) IN this matter evidence of P. W. 1 reveals that on 25. 2. 04 while he was proceeding to Calcutta in a bus of route No. SD-18, 4/5 miscreants boarded the bus at 'dhorar More' and brought him down under threat showing fire arm and dagger to him. The miscreants forced him to accompany them to a nearby paddy field and there, the miscreants snatched away Rs. 95,000/- from him which was kept in a bag of cream colour over which his name Sahadeb was written or engraved with green thread. The miscreants also snatched away Rs. 6,000/- from him which was kept in a separate nylon bag. Besides that, the miscreants snatched away his H. M. T. wrist watch and a silver ring fitted with red stone and both on the wrist watch and silver ring his name was inscribed. The miscreants also snatched away Rs. 6,000/- from him which was kept in a separate nylon bag. Besides that, the miscreants snatched away his H. M. T. wrist watch and a silver ring fitted with red stone and both on the wrist watch and silver ring his name was inscribed. He was not placed in the T. I. parade for the purpose of identification of any accused. He attended T. I. parade of articles and could recognise his stolen wrist watch, finger ring and the bag or pouch of cream colour over which his name with green thread was written. ( 20 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 2 gives us the picture that at 'dhorar More' some persons brought down P. W. 1 from the bus of route No. SD-18. P. W. 3 also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 by stating that at 'dhorar More', 4/5 miscreants brought down a passenger from the bus and while doing so they had fire arms in their hands. P. W. 3 even uttered name of the appellant Satyajit Purkait as one of the miscreants. Evidence of P. W. 14 made it clear that after receiving the F. I. R. he was entrusted with investigation and on 26. 2. 04 he arrested Satyajit Purkait. Satyajit purkait made a statement before him disclosing that the stolen money had been kept in the room of Ayub AM Peada, and to work out that information pursuant to the statement of appellant Satyajit Purkait P. W. 14 went to house of Ayub Ali Peada on 27. 2. 04 along with accused Satyajit, witnesses and other Police Officers. Pursuant to the statement of Satyajit purkait Rs. 65,000/- kept in the cream coloured bag/pouch over which the name of Sahadeb written or engraved with green thread was recovered and was seized by a seizure list (Ext-4/2 ). The seizure list contains signature of appellant Satyajit Purkait and the left thumb impression of appellant Ayub Ali Peada. Evidence of P. W. 14 and contents of the seizure list clearly establishes that the said money was stolen in the dacoity and it was the same bag which was described by P. W. 1 in the FIR and in his evidence. It is evident that the said money was recovered from the room of Ayub Ali Peada and it was kept under the cot in his room. It is evident that the said money was recovered from the room of Ayub Ali Peada and it was kept under the cot in his room. ( 21 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 establishes that appellant nasiruddin Gazi was arrested on 12. 3. 04 and the said accused was remanded to police custody by the order of the learned Magistrate. During such custody pursuant to the statement of the said appellant one old HMT kohinoor white dial wrist watch and one silver ring fitted with red stone were recovered from the room of appellant Nasiruddin Gazi and those articles were kept under the mattress of his bed. P. W. 1 in his evidence and in F. I. R. mentioned that his name was inscribed on the wrist watch and the silver ring and the seizure list (Ext. 3/2) clearly proves that after recovery of the articles it was found that on the back side of dial 's', the first letter of name of Sahadeb was inscribed in Bengali and over the ring name of informant Sahadeb was also inscribed and on one side 'saha' and on the other side 'deb' was inscribed. We have already indicated earlier that there was no cross-examination on vital or material parts to impeach the veracity of the witnesses. Police Officer is also a competent witness and his evidence bears the same value like any other witness. Considering the entire evidence and the circumstances we do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15. P. W. 14 stated that before incident he did not know the appellants and accordingly there is no chance of embellishment in this case or to draw inference that the I. O. falsely implicated the appellants out of any rivalry or enmity. ( 22 ) WE cannot remain oblivious of the fact of recovery of the money within two days of the incident and recovery of stolen wrist watch and the silver ring within 27 days of the incident of dacoity. ( 22 ) WE cannot remain oblivious of the fact of recovery of the money within two days of the incident and recovery of stolen wrist watch and the silver ring within 27 days of the incident of dacoity. In our opinion, elements of dacoity was there in this case as from evidence it is well established that some miscreants (as stated by P. W. 2) or at least 4/5 miscreants (as stated by P. W. 1 and P. W. 3) at the point of fire arm forcibly took away p. W. 1 from the bus and snatched away his money and other articles putting him under threat. Charge-sheet was also submitted against five persons and in the trial in all five accused persons faced the trial. Presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act is applicable in this case and recovery of the articles of dacoity within two days of the incident clearly proves that the appellants retained or received such stolen properties in their possession which they had obtained by transfer by a dacoity. ( 23 ) THE ingredients for invocation of Section 412 of the I. P. C. are (1) that the property in question was stolen property, (2) that the possession of such property was transferred by commission of dacoity and (3) that the accused retained or received such stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that the said property was obtained by him on account of commission of a dacoity. The law is also well settled that in so far as the recovery of the property from the possession of the accused is concerned unless the accused explains as to how he acquired possession over the property a presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Chhote Lal Singh v. State of Madhya pradesh, reported in 1978 Cri. LJ 1411 held that when the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the accused in the T. I. parade but the property which were subject-matter of dacoity were recovered at the instance of the accused, the conviction of the accused had to be changed from Section 397 of I. P. C. to Section 412 of I. P. C. In Ishwari v. State, reported in 1980 cri. L J 571 the properties looted in a dacoity were found in the possession of the accused who was the resident of the neighbouring village within three days of the occurrence and those were recovered from his possession. It was held that it could be presumed that he had known or had reason to believe that the properties were the stolen properties and his conviction under Section 412 of the I. P. C. was proper. The Supreme court in Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1982 Cri. L J 610 held that where the property looted in a dacoity was recovered from the accused very soon after the dacoity, the accused could be convicted under Section 412 of the I. P. C. and not under Section 395 of the I. P. C. The law is thus settled that in order to convict the accused under Section 412 of the I. P. C. with the aid of presumption under illustration (a) to section 144 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of stolen property must been soon after the commission of the dacoity and it must also be established that the possession of the accused was conscious and exclusive. ( 24 ) CONSIDERING the legal principles and the facts and circumstances of the present case we are convinced that there was a dacoity and properties of P. W. 1 were snatched away at gun point on 25. 2. 04. The money including bag/pouch of P. W. 1 with his name written on the bag was recovered and money was also found inside the bag and the said articles were recovered within two days of the incident pursuant to the statement of Satyajit Purkait from the room of Ayub Ali Peada. The facts, circumstances and evidence clearly prove that the accused Satyajit Purkait and Ayub Ali Peada had the possession of the money and bag with their conscious and exclusive knowledge that the said articles were obtained by them after the commission of dacoity. Similarly, within 27 days of the incident the wrist watch and the silver ring were recovered from the room of Nasiruddin Gazi pursuant to his statement and it also proves that he obtained those articles soon after the commission of dacoity and his possession over such property was conscious and exclusive. Similarly, within 27 days of the incident the wrist watch and the silver ring were recovered from the room of Nasiruddin Gazi pursuant to his statement and it also proves that he obtained those articles soon after the commission of dacoity and his possession over such property was conscious and exclusive. The evidence which, we have discussed above clearly proves that the appellants kept the articles mentioned above knowing fully well that the said articles were involved in a dacoity and they were in possession of the said properties which were the subject-matter of dacoity. In the circumstances, there would be presumption that the appellants were receivers of the properties transferred to them in the course of the dacoity. ( 25 ) CONSIDERING the entire facts and circumstances we clearly find that elements of Section 412 of the I. P. C. were fully proved and established against the appellants and the trial Court rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 412 of the I. P. C. ( 26 ) IN view of our discussion made above we do not find any merit in the appeals so far as it relates to conviction of the appellants under section 412 of the I. P. C. The learned trial Court sentenced the appellants to suffer imprisonment for 10 years each which in our opinion was harsh. Accordingly, we modify the sentence and reduce the sentence of the appellants from ten years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 1000/- each i. d. to suffer simple imprisonment for four months each. With this modification regarding sentence all the appeals are accordingly dismissed. This order will govern all the three appeals i. e. C. R. A. No. 635 of 2005, C. R. A. No. 657 of 2005 and C. R. A. No. 691 of 2005.