( 1 ) THIS batch of Criminal Appeals is filed by the appellants - accused Nos. 8, 9, 1, 7, 5 and 2 to 4 and 6 respectively assailing the judgment in S. C. No. 99 of 2002 dated 14-6-2005 passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, convicting and sentencing them for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 412 IPC and accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC as well. ( 2 ) THE convictions and sentences imposed on the accused are as under: Accused Charge Conviction Sentence Accused Nos. 1 to 10 Under Section Accused Nos. A-1 to A-9 are sentenced to 1 to 9 found guilty. suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years each 120 (B) IPC Accused No. 10 found not ?? guilty ? and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to suffer and ?? is acquitted of the same. Found not guilty Acquitted. simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. Accused Nos. 1 to 10 Accused No. 2 Under Section 395 IPC Under Section 397 IPC Accused Nos. 1 to 9 Under Section 412 IPC Found guilty Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. The sentences passed against him shall run concurrently. Found guilty Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 /- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. The sentences passed against them shall run concurrently ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Accused No. 1 Mandapati Surya Venkata krishnam Raju alias Krishnam Raju alias m. S. V. K. Raju is resident of Visalakshinagar of Visakhapatnam City. He had an open site at pothinamallayyapalem. He also had a residence at East Point Colony, visakhapatnam in Eswaras Gurupati residency, Flat No. 3, where he was keeping his second wife Mandapati Neelaveni. He had some political and trade union activities. Accused No. 9 Koribilli Suresh is resident of subashnagar, Visakhapatnam and his wife is a Corporator in Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation. Accused Nos. 1 and 9 are close associates. ii) One Madireddy Rama Mohana Reddy alias Ramu, son of Gali Reddy (P. W. 23) is resident of Banaganapalli village of Kurnool district. He had some political and trade union activities. Accused No. 9 Koribilli Suresh is resident of subashnagar, Visakhapatnam and his wife is a Corporator in Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation. Accused Nos. 1 and 9 are close associates. ii) One Madireddy Rama Mohana Reddy alias Ramu, son of Gali Reddy (P. W. 23) is resident of Banaganapalli village of Kurnool district. He developed acquaintance with accused No. 1 during political activities and the said Rama Mohana Reddy told accused no. 1 that he was maintaining hired goondas and committing offences like dacoities and murders and he is ready to assist him in case of necessity. After his association with Rama mohana Reddy, accused No. 1 developed idea of robbing rich business people and contacted Rama Mohana Reddy with regard to the same. Later Rama Mohana Reddy came along with his men accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, Fakheer Basha alias Chiplai, vadde Peddanna, Vedde Subbarayudu, karanam Rajasekhar Rao alias Sekhar and alakuntla Subbaraidu respectively, in his tata sumo vehicle to Vizag where accused No. 1 arranged for their stay at his shed at pothinamallayyapalem. The vehicle in which they came developed some mechanical problem and accused No. 1 sent it to balaji Automobiles at Adarsanagar, visakhapatnams and entrusted the work to p. Ws. 15 and 16, Senapati Surya Rao and tekimudi Raju, for repairs and painting. While these people were staying at the shed of accused No. 1, his watchman Yamala raminaidu alias Ramu, P. W. 14, looked after their arrangements. Accused No. 1 arranged two cars and instructed the drivers to take rama Mohana Reddy and accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 10 around the town and show important business places to them. After staying for two days at Vizag, Rama Mohana Reddy left along with his men leaving accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the shed of Accused No. 1. Before going, he suggested that targeting Vaibhav Jewellery shop would be useful and promised to return to vizag with his associates and as promised he came back to Vizag along with accused nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10 on 5-2-2002 and stayed at the shed of accused No. 1. Accused gathered information that Grandhi Manoj Kumar- P. W. 1 was in the habit of carrying large amounts of money, particularly, whenever he returns from journeys outside and would deposit that amount in local banks. 4, 5, 6 and 10 on 5-2-2002 and stayed at the shed of accused No. 1. Accused gathered information that Grandhi Manoj Kumar- P. W. 1 was in the habit of carrying large amounts of money, particularly, whenever he returns from journeys outside and would deposit that amount in local banks. They planned to rob money from P. W. 1 on 8-2-2002 when he goes to his bank and the accused reached the area of his shop on that day at about 10-00 a. m. and were watching the movements of P. W. 1. At that time, P. Ws. 15 and 16 enquired accused no. 1 about the tata sumo vehicle they repaired. An employee of Vaibhav Jewellers P. W. 11 also noticed the presence of accused No. 1 at that time. At about 10-00 a. m. , P. W. 1 entered his shop and came out half-an-hour later along with his salesman Vanapalli Venkata Kumar p. W. 3 and driver Nati Ramesh Varma alias varma P. W. 2. All of them boarded the silver gray coloured Ceilo car of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 was carrying a maroon coloured bag containing cash of Rs. 23,50,000/ -. They went to the house of Swamiji Kandala Venkata Satya syam - P. W. 7 situated at M. V. P. Colony, sector 8, Visakhapatnam by parking the car on the road, P. W. 1 entered the house of p. W. 7, spent about five minutes in the house, in the mean time accused, who followed the car of P. W. 1, stopped their vehicle 100 yards away and accused No. 1 exhorted the other accused to attack the driver and occupants of the car of P. W. 1, pull them out and escape from that place along with the cash and to go to Beach road. Then accused No. 1 proceeded in his car along with his driverand the remaining got down from the car and another car in which some other accused were present also stopped nearby. Rama Mohana Reddy holding a pistol and accused No. 2 holding a big knife went to ceilo car along with accused Nos. 3 to 6 and 10. Rama Mohana Reddy opened fire at the side glass of P. W. 1 s car at the driver's seat. Glass of the car was broken. Rama Mohana Reddy holding a pistol and accused No. 2 holding a big knife went to ceilo car along with accused Nos. 3 to 6 and 10. Rama Mohana Reddy opened fire at the side glass of P. W. 1 s car at the driver's seat. Glass of the car was broken. The bullet struck the left upper arm of the driver, P. W. 2, causing injury. When P. W. 2 was opening the door, rama Mohana Reddy pulled him out and asked him about the keys of the car and then proceeded with pistol towards P. W. 3. Meanwhile, accused No. 2 armed with knife came upon P. W. 2 and caused injury on his right hand. Rama Mohana Reddy who took the keys of the carfrom P. W. 2, gave it to accused no. 10 and he started the car and drove it away along with accused Nos. 2 to 6 and Rama mohana Reddy, during thattime, Rama Mohana reddy threatened passersby with pistol preventing them from approaching the car. Afterthecarofp. W. 1 started driven by accused no. 10, accused No. 1 signalled the other cars to follow it. The car was stopped at some distance from YMCA building on Beach road, where accused Nos. 2 and 10 took up the maroon coloured bag from the dickey of the carand abandoned the carthere. Then all the accused and Rama Mohana Reddy got into two ambassador cars in which they came and proceeded to his shed at pothinamaliayyapalem. There accused No. 1 kept Rs. 9,00,000/- with him and distributed the remaining amount to the other accused and sent them away. iii) P. W. 1, who went into the house of p. W. 7, while coming out, found the ongoing offence, shifted P. W. 2tosagardurga Nursing home in an auto rickshaw with the help of p. W. 3 and then went to III Town Crime Police station and gave written complaint. On the basis of which a case was registered by the sub Inspector of Police - P. W. 26 in Crime no. 15 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, who also commenced the investigation. iv) During the course of investigation, on 19-3-2002, aceused Nbs. 1 to 9 were arrested at the residence of accused No. 1 i. e. Flat no. 15 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 395 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, who also commenced the investigation. iv) During the course of investigation, on 19-3-2002, aceused Nbs. 1 to 9 were arrested at the residence of accused No. 1 i. e. Flat no. 3of Eswara Gurupati Residency, 4th Floor, east Point Colony, Visakhapatnam by a. V. Ramana (P. W. 27), the Inspector of police, CCSTTeam III, in the presence of the mediators and certain cash was recovered from various accused. He recovered rs. 5,75,000/- from the possession of accused no. 1 along with the bag and Rs. 30,000/- each from accused Nos. 2 to 6. All the cash was containing slips of Vaibhav Jewellers. On the intervening night of 19/20-3-2002 accused no. 8 Mohammad Khasim led the mediators and the Inspector of Police to his house at Salipeta Wardboy line, near K. G. H. , visakhapatnam and produced cash of rs. 20,000/- containing slips of Vaibhav jewellers on either side. On the very same night, accused No. 7 Gunuru Venkata satyanarayana alias Sreenu led the police to his house at Pithapuram colony, Maddilapalem, visakhapatnam and produced a bag containing rs. 30,000/- which also contained slips of vaibhav Jewellers and the same was seized by the police. Same night, accused No. 9 koribilli Suresh led the police to his house at subhash Nagar, Kancharapalem, visakhapatnam and produced a bag containing three bundles of Rs. 500/- denomination amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- containing the address slip of Vaibhav Jewellers. On the morning of 20-3-2002 accused No. 9 led the police and the mediators to the shop of tekumudi Raju - P. W. 16 at Adarsanagarand the police seized the Tata Sumo vehicle. Accused No. 10 Alakuntala Subabraidu surrendered before the Court on 23-4-2002. Rama Mohana Reddy and the other accused absconded along with cash of rs. 10,00,000/- stolen during the offence. The fired bullet was recovered from the body of p. W. 2 during his treatment. v) The Investigation revealed that accused nos. 1, 9 and absconding accused Rama mohana Reddy were having cell phones with numbers 984819352, 9848293480, 9848261853 respectively. Rama Mohana reddy had landline telephone at Banaganapalli in Kurnool District with its number 27643. Investigation also revealed that accused contacted each other. Investigation revealed that P. W. 2 suffered four injuries including fracture of left humerus. 1, 9 and absconding accused Rama mohana Reddy were having cell phones with numbers 984819352, 9848293480, 9848261853 respectively. Rama Mohana reddy had landline telephone at Banaganapalli in Kurnool District with its number 27643. Investigation also revealed that accused contacted each other. Investigation revealed that P. W. 2 suffered four injuries including fracture of left humerus. In the test identification parade conducted by II Metropolitan magistrate, Visakahpatnam, accused No. 2 was identified by P. W. 2 as the person that caused knife injury to him. vi) Thus, according to prosecution, conspiracy and dacoity were proved against the accused and charge sheet was laid for the same. ( 4 ) CHARGES undersections 120 B, 395 and 412 IPC were framed against accused Nos. 1 to 10 apart from 397 IPC against accused no. 2, for which they pleaded not guilty. ( 5 ) TO substantiate its case, prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 27 and marked exs. P-1 to P-36 apart from Mos. 1 to 32: ( 6 ) AFTERCLOSURE of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , accused denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and defence evidence is adduced on behalf of A-1, A-2, A-9 and A-10. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the accused, D. Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs. D-1 to D-18 were marked. Exs. X-1 and X-2 and C-1 were also marked. ( 8 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10 have examined themselves as defence witnesses apart from examining others. ( 9 ) OUT of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. W. 1 is complainant himself. Hespokeabouthis being proprietor of vaibhav Jewellers, Visakhapatnam. P. Ws. 2 and 3 being his driver and salesman respectively. He further stated that on 8-2-2002 at about 10-30 a. m. , he started with p. Ws. 2 and 3 with cash of Rs. 23,50,000/- to go to Karur Vysya Bank, Daba Gardens, to depositthe same. On the way, he received call from P. W. 7 for attending pooja and first he went there instead of going to the bank. He further stated that on 8-2-2002 at about 10-30 a. m. , he started with p. Ws. 2 and 3 with cash of Rs. 23,50,000/- to go to Karur Vysya Bank, Daba Gardens, to depositthe same. On the way, he received call from P. W. 7 for attending pooja and first he went there instead of going to the bank. Around 11 -00 a. m. , he reached the house of p. W. 7, got down from the car and went inside the house of P. W. 7 and within five minutes while he was returning and was on the staircase, heard the cries from his car and observed one person armed with pistol near p. W. 3 and another person armed with knife near P. W. 2. P. W. 2 was still in the driving seat. Glass of the door of his car towards driver's seat was found broken. The person armed with knife was threatening P. W. 2 to give the keys of the car and the person armed with pistol was threatening P. W. 3. When P. W. 2 refused to give keys of the car, the assailant holding the knife assaulted him (P. W. 2 ). Then P. W. 2 gave the keys. By then, 3 - 4 persons sat in the rear side of the car and after P. W. 2 gave the keys, two other assailants who were armed with knife and pistol also boarded the car and the car went away towards Ushodaya School. An amount of Rs. 23,50,000/- kept in a bag was in the dickey of that car at that time. P. Ws. 2 and 3 remained at the scene. He instructed P. W. 3 to take P. W. 2 to Sagar durga Nursing Home and he himself wentto III town Police Station and informed about the incident and gave written complaint - Ex. P-1. He identified accused No. 2 as the person holding the knife. He also stated that later he was informed that Rs. 9,50,000/- was recovered out of the stolen amount. He also identified m. O. 3 as the maroon coloured bag in which he kept the cash on that day, M. O. 4 as his ceilo car bearing No A. P. 31-V-6066. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2, Rameshvarma nati, is that he was working as salesman in vaibhav Jewellers of P. W. 1. He also identified m. O. 3 as the maroon coloured bag in which he kept the cash on that day, M. O. 4 as his ceilo car bearing No A. P. 31-V-6066. ( 10 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2, Rameshvarma nati, is that he was working as salesman in vaibhav Jewellers of P. W. 1. P. W. 3 was also working as salesman along with him. P. W. 1 used to visit P. W. 7 Poojari. On 8-2-2002, he came to the shop by 9-30 a. m. P. W. 3 was also present. P. W. 1 came at about 10-00 a. m. On that day, regular driver was not present and as he knows car driving, P. W. 1 asked in to keep the car ready in front of the shop and he obeyed him. At about 10-30 a. m. , p. W. 1 came along with P. W. 3 and P. W. 3 was holding a maroon coloured bag and the same was kept in the dickey of the car. P. W. 1 sat backside of the car and P. W. 3 sat in the front seat and he drove the car to go to Karur vysya Bank, Daba Gardens. On the way, p. W. 1 received a call from P. W. 7 and P. W. 1 instructed him to drive the car towards the house of P. W. 7 at Sector-8, MVP Colony and he did the same and stopped the car at the house of P. W. 7, P. W. 1 got down and asked them to wait there. P. W. 1 went inside the house of P. W. 7 and at that time it was 11 -00 a. m. He closed the doors of the car and was sitting in the car. In the meanwhile, 5-6 persons came to the car and one person opened fire and the bullet hit the glass of the car and then his left upper arm and the glass of the car also hit him. The person whof ired dragged him out of the car and then went towards P. W. 3. In the meanwhile another person armed with knife came to him and asked him to give the keys of the car. The person whof ired dragged him out of the car and then went towards P. W. 3. In the meanwhile another person armed with knife came to him and asked him to give the keys of the car. For about 3 minutes, he resisted, then the said person, who was armed with sword, caused injury on his left upperarm and took the keys from him by beating him again on his wrist with the knife. The keys fell on the ground, the assailant took the keys and gave it to another person. The person holding the pistol dragged P. W. 3 from car and altogether six persons boarded the car and left the place. In the meanwhile, P. W. 1 came and seeing injury on him instructed P. W. 3 to take him to sagar Durga Nursing Home where he became conscious at about 6-30 p. m. as he became unconscious immediatelyafter the incident. A bullet was removed from his left upperarm. He was treated as inpatient in the hospital for 20 days. He identified accused No. 2 as the person that caused injuries to him. ( 11 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 3 Vanapalli venkatakumar is that he was working as salesman in P. W. 1's Vaibhav Jewellers, visakhapatnam. On 8-2-2002 at about 9-30 a. m. , he came to the shop. P. W. 2 also came and P. W. 1 came around 10-00 a. m. P. W. 1 instructed P. W. 2 to keep the car ready, as the regular driver did not come. P. W. 1 gave him (P. W. 3) a maroon coloured bag and instructed the driver to keep the same in the dickey of the car. He kept the bag in the dickey of the car. P. W. 1 instructed P. W. 2 to take the car to karur Vysya Bank, Daba Gardens. After they went some distance, P. W. 1 received a call and he instructed P. W. 2 to take the car to the house of P. W. 7 at Sector-8, M. V. P. Colony. At 11-00 a. m. , they reached the house of p. W. 7, P. W. 1 got down from the car and went into the house of P. W. 7. Himself and P. W. 2 were sitting in the car. Atthat time, one person holding a pistol came and fired at the glass of the car. At 11-00 a. m. , they reached the house of p. W. 7, P. W. 1 got down from the car and went into the house of P. W. 7. Himself and P. W. 2 were sitting in the car. Atthat time, one person holding a pistol came and fired at the glass of the car. The bullet pierced into left upper arm of P. W. 2 by breaking the glass of the car. Then he tried to get down from the car. Then the person, who opened the fire, came to him and threatened him atthe point of pistol by keeping it on his neck. There were 5 more persons. One of them was armed with sword and he went to P. W. 2 and caused injuries to him with the sword and took the keys of the car and went away. In the meanwhile, P. W. 1 came there and instructed him to shift P. W. 2 to the hospital. He admitted P. W. 2 in Sagar Durga nursing Home and came to the scene at about 1-30 p. m. and by then police came there. He identified accused No. 2 as the person that attacked P. W. 2. ( 12 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 4 Kithada Sanyasirao is that he was running a laundry in MVP colony of Vizag near the house of P. W. 7. On the date of incident at about 11-00 a. m. , a big car came there, he heard cries near the car, which was parked at a distance of 20 feet from his push cart. There were about 6 persons nearthe car and some galata was going on. The car driver received knife injury on his left shoulder and right wrist and he (driver) also received a bullet injury on his left shoulder. One assailant had a sword and another person a pistol. After the incident, 6 persons left with the car. ( 13 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 5 Padi Deva Rao is that he is an auto driver, used to keep his auto in the auto stand at M. V. P. Colony, Sector-8, visakhapatnam. One assailant had a sword and another person a pistol. After the incident, 6 persons left with the car. ( 13 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 5 Padi Deva Rao is that he is an auto driver, used to keep his auto in the auto stand at M. V. P. Colony, Sector-8, visakhapatnam. On the date of incident at about 11-00 a. m. , he observed some galata on the road leading to Ushodaya junction, at which time, a big silver coloured car went towards Ushodaya junction in high speed, he found a person with injuries on his left upper arm and right wrist and blood was oozing out from the injuries. Another person, who was with the injured, stopped his auto and took the injured in his auto to Sagar Durga Hospital, visakhapatnam. He stated that P. W. 2 is the person who was injured and whom he took to hospital on that day. ( 14 ) EVIDENCEOF P. W. 6 Uppu Surya Kumari, a neighbour of P. W. 7, is that at about 11-00 or 11-15 a. m. , she heard cries from outside and came out of her house and found a big car standing in front of the house of P. W. 7 on the road. She also found 5 or 6 persons at the car and she saw someone caused injuries to driver of the car with knife and she also found a person armed with pistol. She saw the persons leaving towards Ushodaya junction. ( 15 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 7 Kandala v. S. Syam is that he knows P. Ws. 1 to 3. P. W. 1 used to come to him since 5-6 years for the purpose of poojas etc. On 8-2-2002, he performed pooja at his (P. W. 7) house for p. W. 1 and at about 10-15 a. m. , he informed him on telephone to come to his house to seek blessings. P. W. 1 informed that he was going to bank and said that he would come. At about 10-30 a. m. , P. W. 1 came to his house along with P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 1 alone came into the house. P. W. 1 stayed with him for about 10 minutes. P. W. 1 informed that he was going to bank and said that he would come. At about 10-30 a. m. , P. W. 1 came to his house along with P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 1 alone came into the house. P. W. 1 stayed with him for about 10 minutes. Aftertaking blessings and prasadam, he went out and within ten minutes of P. W. 1 leaving the house, he heard some cries form outside. He came out from pooja room and p. W. 1 informed him that some persons came with knife and pistol caused injuries to his employees and taken away cash of rs. 23,50,000/ -. He saw the injured boarding an auto. ( 16 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 8 Nakka ramakrishna, a resident of Adarshnagar, visakhapatnam, is that he was running a STD booth near the house of P. W. 7. On 8-2-2002 at about 8-00 a. m. , he opened the STD booth. At about 10-30 or 11-00 a. m. , on hearing some cries in front of the house of P. W. 7, he came out and saw some persons taking away a car and there were abut 6 persons. Out of whom, one was having a sword and another one pistol and they were threatening people not to come near. ( 17 ) P. W. 9 Pativada Pydinaidu, who is a security Guard at Palm Beach Apartments, opposite to YMCA, Vizag, spoke about a car being parked at that apartment on the date of incident. ( 18 ) P. W. 10 Chunduri Sukumar is a salesman of Vaibhav Jewellers. His evidence is that on 7-2-2002, during nighttime he was at the cash counter of Vaibhav Jewellers. One peruri Sreenivasarao brought a maroon coloured bag containing cash to him to keep the same in the chest and he kept it in the chest. Next morning, he learnt that the cash was stolen. ( 19 ) P. W. 11 Singamsetti Satya Srinivas was floor in charge in Vaibhav Jewellers. His evidence is that on 8-2-2002, he came to shop by 9-00 a. m. and he went out to a juice shop and found a blue coloured ambassador car near their shop in which 3 persons were sitting. ( 19 ) P. W. 11 Singamsetti Satya Srinivas was floor in charge in Vaibhav Jewellers. His evidence is that on 8-2-2002, he came to shop by 9-00 a. m. and he went out to a juice shop and found a blue coloured ambassador car near their shop in which 3 persons were sitting. Accused No. 1 was also sitting in the car in the front side and he smiled at him as earlier accused No. 1 purchased jewellery in their shop. Accused No. 1 approached him and advised him to have a Union for the employees working in the said Vaibhav jewellers. At abut 10-30 a. m. , P. Ws. 1 to 3 left the shop and at about 3-30 p. m. on the same day he came to know about the incident. ( 20 ) P. WS. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 (Baki Siva prasad, Manchali Malleswara, Y. Ramunaidu alias Ramu, Senapathi Suryarao and Takimudi raju respectively) turned hostile. ( 21 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 17 K. Mallikarjuan rao is that he is a panch witness forthe scene of offence (Ex. P-10), mediators report (Ex. P-11)and for recovery of M. 0. 1 sword and M. O. 4 car etc. ( 22 ) P. W. 18 K. Ramachander Tirumala kumar was photographer in Mobile Forensic science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam (Clues ). His evidence is that on 8-2-2002, he went to the scene of offence and took the photographs of M. O. 4 car. ( 23 ) P. W. 19 Duvvu Ramana has stated that he was working as watchman at Eswara, gurupati residency. He knows accused No. 1 and Mandapati Neelaveni, wife of accused no. 1. Accused No. 1 and his wife were staying in 4th floor of the apartment. He also stated that his mother Duvvi Kannamma used to work in the house of accused No. 1. ( 24 ) P. W. 20 M. V. Satyanarayana Reddy, special Revenue Inspector, is a mediator for recoveries made at the house of accused no. 1 at Eswara Gurpati Residency and other recoveries at the instance of the accused. ( 25 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 21 Dr. P. Muralikrishna is that he examined P. W. 2 and found following four injuries on his person: 1) Swelling and deformity of left arm. 2) Abrasion over left arm about 5 x 1 Cm. 1 at Eswara Gurpati Residency and other recoveries at the instance of the accused. ( 25 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 21 Dr. P. Muralikrishna is that he examined P. W. 2 and found following four injuries on his person: 1) Swelling and deformity of left arm. 2) Abrasion over left arm about 5 x 1 Cm. 3) Abrasion over inner aspect of left arm about 1 x 1 Cm. 4) Incised wound over radial aspect of right wrist measuring about 5 x 2 Cms. ( 26 ) P. W. 22 Bontha Christopher, Sub-Divisional engineer, Department of BSNL, kurnool, has spoken about telephone charts pertaining to telephone No. 27643 of banaganapalli. ( 27 ) P. W. 23 Madireddy Gaii Reddy is father of absconding accused Rama Mohana reddy who spoke about telephone number 27643 at their house at Banaganapalli. ( 28 ) P. W. 24 Smt. B. Gayatri is the then III additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, who recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and she conducted test identification parade in which P. W. 2 identified A-2. ( 29 ) P. W. 25 V. Ravi, the then Senior manager, Administration, Tata Cellular, spoke about details of certain cell phone numbers used by accused No. 1. He stated that cell number 98481-94352 belonged to accused No. 1. ( 30 ) P. W. 26 K. Ashok Kumar is the then sub-lnspectorof Police, II Town Crime Police station who received Ex. P-1 complaint from P. W. 1. ( 31 ) P. W. 27 A. V. Ramana, is the then inspector of Police, CCS Teams-Ill, visakhapatnam City, who investigated the case. ( 32 ) EVIDENCE of D. W. 1 Chukka Sanyasi reddi is that he knew accused No. 9 and his wife. On 14-2-2002, wife of accused No. 9 came to him and said that police took away her husband. He accompanied her to police station and found accused No. 9 in the lock up. On his enquiry, Inspector of Police informed him that accused No. 9 was accused in vaibhav Jewellerry's case. He visited Police station regularly and around 18th or 19th february 2002, Inspector of Police demanded him to give Rs. 1,75,000/-for release of accused no. 9 and threatened that in case the amount is not paid, accused No. 9 would be implicated in the case. He visited Police station regularly and around 18th or 19th february 2002, Inspector of Police demanded him to give Rs. 1,75,000/-for release of accused no. 9 and threatened that in case the amount is not paid, accused No. 9 would be implicated in the case. As the Inspector promised to release accused No. 9 in case the amount is paid, the family members of accused No. 9 arranged Rs. 1,75,000/- and on 16-3-2002 he gave it to the Inspector of Police as demanded by him. In spite of receiving the amount, inspector of Police did not release accused no. 9 and on his questioning, he told that due to pressure from his higher authorities, he could not help him. He also spoke about source of Rs. 1,75,000/- by the family members of accused No. 9. ( 33 ) D. W. 2 M. V. S. Krishnam Raju is accused No. 1. His evidence is that during second week of February 2002, A. C. P. (Crimes), took him to Harbour Police Station and accused him of having connection with vaibhav Jewellers case. On 11-3-2002, he was taken to State Bank of Hyderabad, M. V. P. Colony, where he had fixed deposit and an account was got opened by him and fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- was got encashed. Next day, he was again taken to the same bank where his gold ornaments were taken out from the lockerand police sold away the same and they took money. Police took him to his in-laws house at Poosapati Rega on 13-3-2002 where police threatened his in-laws and made them to arrange for sale of land and on 14-3-2002 his in-laws sold away their land under an agreement of sale and gave rs. 4,25,000/- to the police and nothing was recovered from him by the police. He does not know who is Neelaveni. One Smt. M. Bharathi is his wife. ( 34 ) D. W. 3, Penumatcha Venkata jagannadha Raju, is brother-in-law of accused no. 1. His evidence is that on 13-3-2002, police along with accused No. 1 came to his village and asked to pay an amount of rs. 5,00,000/ -. They promised to pay the same within two days. Next day police again came. They entered into an agreement to sell land admeasuring Acs. 5-30 cents for rs. 2,12,000/- under the original of Ex. D-13. 5,00,000/ -. They promised to pay the same within two days. Next day police again came. They entered into an agreement to sell land admeasuring Acs. 5-30 cents for rs. 2,12,000/- under the original of Ex. D-13. They also entered into an agreement to sell their tiled house for Rs. 4,50,000/- and took rs. 2,13,000/- as advance and they gave rs. 4,25,000/- to the police on 14-3-2002 itself. ( 35 ) D. W. 4 F. Basha is accused No. 2. His evidence is that police arrested him on 12-3-2002 at his village and collected rs. 30,000/- from him. He was brought to visakhapatnam. He was not arrested on 18-3-2002 at Vizag. His illegal arrest appeared as news item in Eenadu daily on 17-3-2002 and the same is marked as Ex. D-6. He was shown to P. Ws. 1 to 3 by the police at the police station as well as in the Court. P. W. 2 identified him as he was shown to him by the police prior to the test identification parade. ( 36 ) D. W. 5 K. Suresh is accused No. 9. He has spoken about police illegally arresting him on 10-2-2002 and of his paying rs. 1,75,000/- to the lnspectorof Police and of his not being released as promised by the inspector of Police in spite of payment of the amount. ( 37 ) D. W. 6 K. Venkatarao is a relative of accused No. 9-D. W. 5. His evidence is that on 16-3-2002, wife of accused No. 9 requested him to give Rs. 50,000/- for release of her husband, who was detained in the police station by the police, and he withdrew rs. 50,000/- from his bank account and gave it to her on 16-3-2002. ( 38 ) D. W. 7 K. Janardhanarao was a Court clerk. He was examined to show about filing of petition for interim custody of the cash. ( 39 ) D. W. 8 Suresh Podwal is a person that has allegedly taken a shop on lease from the mother of accused No. 9 and gave rs. 1,00,000/-to herasadvanceon 9-2-2002. ( 40 ) D. W. 9 A. Subbarayudu is accused no. 10. He has spoken about his surrendering to police long after the incident and nothing being recovered from his possession etc. 1,00,000/-to herasadvanceon 9-2-2002. ( 40 ) D. W. 9 A. Subbarayudu is accused no. 10. He has spoken about his surrendering to police long after the incident and nothing being recovered from his possession etc. ( 41 ) AFTER an elaborate consideration of the evidence of the above witnesses and the relevant documents, learned trial Judge found accused Nos. 1 to 9 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) and 412 ipc and accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC as well and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as referred supra directing all the sentences to run concurrently while acquitting accused no. 10 of all the charges. ( 42 ) THE learned trial Judge acquitted A-10 of all the offences with which he is charged and also acquitted A-1 to A-9 for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, but convicted A-1 to A-9 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 412 IPC. Whereas a-2 is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. ( 43 ) THE prosecution case to a great extent depends on the recovery of stolen cash from the possession of A-1 to A-9. Only A-2, who attacked P. W. 2-driver of P. W. 1 with knife at the time of offence, is identified as the culprit that has participated in the offence. ( 44 ) THERE cannot be any dispute about the incident taking place on 8-2-2002 at about 11. 00 a. m. at the residence of P. W. 7. The evidence of P. W. 1 is that he started to the bank with cash of Rs. 23. 5 lakhs and kept in a maroon coloured bag, subsequently marked as M. 0. 4, to deposit the same in the bank. On the way, he received a call from P. W. 7 on cell phone asking him to come to his residence for taking blessings as some pooja was performed on his behalf. Then he went there with p. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 2 is the driver of the car and P. W. 3 is the Assistant. On the way, he received a call from P. W. 7 on cell phone asking him to come to his residence for taking blessings as some pooja was performed on his behalf. Then he went there with p. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 2 is the driver of the car and P. W. 3 is the Assistant. At the house of p. W. 7, he parked the car outside and went into the house of P. W. 7 and returned within five minutes and while he was on staircase itself, he heard the cries near his car and he noticed the incident that was going on and found that cash of Rs. 23. 5 lakhs kept in the dickey of the car was taken away and found p. W. 2 was lying with injuries and P. W. 3 was also present there. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 also shows that the incident has taken place in the above stated manner. Thus, it cannot be totally disbelieved that the incident has not taken place. ( 45 ) NEXT question that arises for consideration is whether there was any evidence to prove the conspiracy against the accused. ( 46 ) THE contention of the prosecution is that Rammohan Reddy absconding accused met A-1 in some political gathering and gave an idea of committing robberies etc. , thereafter, they hatched a plan. The prosecution predominently depends on the alleged telephonic conversations between A-1 and rammohan Reddy for the offence of conspiracy. The learned trial Judge on the same basis found the accused guilty under Section 120 B ipc apart from the circumstances of recovery of money, the movements of A-1 around the shop on the date of incident. ( 47 ) P. W. 4 who is running laundry shop on push cart in the locality where P. W. 7 was residing has spoken that some incident has taken place. On that day a car was parked there and some galata has taken place and that the car driver received knife injury to his left shoulder and right wrist and also received bullet injury to his left upper shoulder. One person armed with knife/sword, another person having pistol were present there and six persons left the place with the car. On that day a car was parked there and some galata has taken place and that the car driver received knife injury to his left shoulder and right wrist and also received bullet injury to his left upper shoulder. One person armed with knife/sword, another person having pistol were present there and six persons left the place with the car. ( 48 ) P. W. 5 - auto driver has observed the galata at the house of P. W. 7 and after his observing one person with injuries, he shifted him in his auto to Sagar Durga Hospital, visakhapatnam. P. W. 6 who is residing near the house of P. W. 7 also spoke about the incident, stating that on hearing the cries at about 11 or 11. 15 a. m. , she came out from the house, and found a big car standing in front of the house of P. W. 7, and also five to six persons at the car and some one causing injury to the car driver with knife and another person being found armed with pistol and six persons leaving the place. ( 49 ) P. W. 7, who called P. W. 1 to his house also spoken about the incident that has taken place. P. W. 7 stated that P. W. 1 came to his house in a car along with two employees working under him, P. W. 1 alone came in to his house located in the first floor and left within fiveorten minutes aftertaking blessings. When P. W. 1 went out, P. W. 7 heard some cries from outside, then he came out, P. W. 1 informed P. W. 7 about the incident and when the injured was boarding the auto P. W. 7 saw him. P. W. 8 who was running STD booth near sai Surya Bakery near the house of P. W. 7 has spoken about his hearing cries in front of the house of P. W. 7 at 10. 30 or 11. 00 a. m. On that day he heard some cries in front of the house of P. W. 7. P. W. 8 who was running STD booth near sai Surya Bakery near the house of P. W. 7 has spoken about his hearing cries in front of the house of P. W. 7 at 10. 30 or 11. 00 a. m. On that day he heard some cries in front of the house of P. W. 7. On hearing the cries he came out of his shop and saw some persons taking away some car and there were about six persons and that one person was having a knife/sword and another was having pistol and they were threatening people not to come near them saying that they would kill, if anybody comes near them. ( 50 ) THERE is no reason for the above witnesses to give false evidence abut the incident. They have not implicated any accused in the case. ( 51 ) AS contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants there is absolutely no material to show about the participation of Rammohan Reddy in the offence. No witness has spoken about the participation of Rammohan Reddy. The prosecution relied on inadmissible portion of confessions of the accused about their acts. Though, there is some material in the evidence of P. W. 22 - Sub Divisional Telephone engineer, Kurnool, P. W. 25 - Senior Manager tata Cellular who stated that there was conversation between telephone numbers held by A-1 and A-9 particularly with the telephone numbers at the residence of P. W. 23 - father of Ram Mohan Reddy, that cannot prove the conspiracy in the absence of material about the involvement of that Rammohan Reddy. Further the telephone at the residence of p. W. 23 was on the name of Viswanathareddy, and not on the name of anotherson of P. W. 23 i. e. Rammohan Reddy, the alleged culprit in this case. No doubt, even if the telephone is in the name of his brother, Viswanatha Reddy, the alleged offender Rammohan Reddy could have made use of the same, but as there is no material about the involvement of Rammohan reddy, it is difficult to accept the conspiracy between Ram Mohan Reddy and the other accused. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence punishable under section 120-B IPC is not proved. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence punishable under section 120-B IPC is not proved. ( 52 ) STILL, all the aforesaid circumstances would go to show that the incident of robbery of cash of P. W. 1 along with car has taken place on that day i. e. on 8-2-2002. ( 53 ) NOW, it has to be seen whether A-2 has committed the offence punishable under section 397 IPC. ( 54 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2 is that when he and P. W. 3 were sitting in the car, five or six persons came there and out of them, one person fired pistol and the bullet hit the glass of car and then hit his left upper arm. The glass of the car broke and hit him. The said person dragged him out of the carand after leaving him he again went towards P. W. 3. In the meanwhile, another person armed with knife/ sword came to him and asked him to give the keys of the car to him. For about three minutes he resisted, then the said person who was armed with knife caused injury to his left upper arm and then he took the keys is to his right hand and did not give to the assailant. The assailant again caused injury to his right wrist with the same knife and on that the keys fell on the ground and the assailant took the keys and handed it over to another person. In the meanwhile, the person armed with pistol dragged P. W. 3 from the car and six persons boarded the car and left the spot. In the meanwhile, P. W. 1 came there and took him to Sagar Durga Nursing Home and that he became conscious at about 6. 30 p. m. The bullet was removed from his left upperarm. He took treatment for 10 days. He identified A-2 as the person that caused injury to him. He also identified A-2 in the test identification parade. P. W. 3 who was along with P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 at the time of incident has also spoken about the details. He also identified a-2 as the person who was armed with a knife at the time of incident. He also identified A-2 in the test identification parade. P. W. 3 who was along with P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 at the time of incident has also spoken about the details. He also identified a-2 as the person who was armed with a knife at the time of incident. ( 55 ) P. W. 24, the then III Metropolitan magistrate, Visakhapatnam, who conducted test identification parade deposed that P. W. 2 identified A-2 in the test identification parade. Ex. P-29 is the report of the test identification parade. Learned Magistrate also deposed that she recorded statement of A-2 under Ex. P-28, which was read over and explained to the suspect-A-2 and having accepted, he affixed his thumb impression. A-2 was arrested on 2-3-2002, whereas the test identification was conducted on 20-4-2002. Thus, there is substantial time gap between the arrest and in recording the statement and conducting identification parade and the contention of a-2 is that he was shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade. In this case all the accused have allegedly participated in the incident. Accused were arrested on the same day. In case the prosecution wanted to falsely implicate the accused, perhaps they could have done the same with regard to the other accused also. A-1 and A-9 were somewhat prominent persons and might have been known to the witnesses. However, even this cannot be an argument as other accused are not falsely implicated, it cannot be said that A-2 is also not falsely implicated. There is another circumstances of recovery of rs. 30,000/- at the instance of this accused. ( 56 ) A-2 examined himself as D. W. 4 and has stated that on 12-3-2002 during Sivarathri day, Police of Visakhapatnam came to his village and took him into custody and collected rs. 30,000/- from him and brought him to visakhapatnam. The allegation that he was arrested on 18-3-2002 is incorrect, and that he was shown to P. Ws. 1 to 3 by the police in the police station as well as in II MM Court, visakhapatnam during the first remand period. Thus, it is his statement that an amount of rs. 30,000/- was collected from him. He did not state that money of Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him. Even assuming his contention is that the said money of Rs. Thus, it is his statement that an amount of rs. 30,000/- was collected from him. He did not state that money of Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him. Even assuming his contention is that the said money of Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him, there is absolutely no material to show that he possessed such huge cash, as he was only a quarry labour. Thus, the circumstance of recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from him, would support the prosecution case and the circumstances of P. W. 2 identifying him in the test identification parade, would in my opinion, proves his participation in the offence. Thus, the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant-A-2 forthe offence punishable under section 397 IPC is in order, as during the commission of offence, violence was used by a-2 with dangerous weapons and grievous injury was caused to P. W. 2, ( 57 ) NOW it has to be seen whether A-1 to a-9 have committed the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. ( 58 ) THE contention of the learned senior counsel is that the alleged recovery of cash from the appellant is concocted one, as there is material on record to show that before 19-3-2002 on which date the recoveries were allegedly made, they were in police custody as revealed from Exs. D-2 to D-6 - paper publications which reveal that accused were arrested by then. It cannot be accepted that the cash was recovered more than one month after the incident, with the slips of Vaibhav jewellers that the cash was being taken to the bank with the same slips. It is highly improbable that all the nine accused were found at one place on 20-3-2006. ( 59 ) CASH being taken with the slips of vaibhav Jewellers to the bank, though looks somewhat unnatural, it is not impossible. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that some cash was collected by the police from the accused and pasted the slips on that cash and the same was shown as if it was recovered at the instance of the accused. His further contention is that the absence of currency note numbers is a strong circumstance against the prosecution. His further contention is that the absence of currency note numbers is a strong circumstance against the prosecution. Though, there is someforce in this contention, it is to be seen that the cash recovered was huge at the house of A-1 and some of the cash was recovered at the instance of otheraccused their respective residences ands perhaps there was no time for the investigating officers to verify and note all the currency note numbers at that time, as that would have taken some hours and precious time would have been lost. Further when there is no record of thecurrency numbers stolen, noting the currency numbers of the cash recovered, may not be of any use, as there cannot be any possibility of comparison. As contended by the learned counsel for the accused, it looks some what unnatural that all the accused were found at the house of A-1 more than one month after the incident, but even this circumstance is not impossible as the prosecution case was that the accused wanted to make a profession of committing such offences. They might be having a meeting at the residence of A-1 that day. ( 60 ) WE have to take other circumstances in to consideration. P. W. 20 is the panch witness for recovery of cash from A-1 to A-9. His evidence is that he knows only A-1 and he did not know the. other accused. He has specifically stated in his chief-examination that he cannot identify the remaining eight persons. Thus, P. W. 20 could identify only A-1. ( 61 ) IT is necessary to refer to the paper publications - Ex. D-2 to D-6 where there was reference about the accused being arrested prior to 20-3-2002. Ex. D-2 is the paper publication in "eenadu" daily newspaper, dated 15-3-2002 showing that A-1 was arrested. There is no clear information in Ex. D-2 as to when A-1 was arrested. It shows that A-1 was involved in various nefarious activities and he was ultimately arrested. Ex. D-3 is paper publication in "vaartha" City edition dated 14-3-2002, about the arrest of the accused. In ex. D-4 - paper publication in "eenadu" dated 15-3-2002 also there is nothing much about the arrest of the accused. Ex. D-6 is paper publication in "eenadu" main edition dated 1/-3-2002 showing that A-1 to A-9 were arrested by that date. Ex. D-3 is paper publication in "vaartha" City edition dated 14-3-2002, about the arrest of the accused. In ex. D-4 - paper publication in "eenadu" dated 15-3-2002 also there is nothing much about the arrest of the accused. Ex. D-6 is paper publication in "eenadu" main edition dated 1/-3-2002 showing that A-1 to A-9 were arrested by that date. Thus, there are certain paper publications showing that the accused were arrested before 20-3-2002 itself. Hence, it is contended that the accused were arrested earlier to 19-3-2002 and as such it cannot be accepted that at their instance, recoveries were made on 19-3-2002 and that would throw away the entire prosecution case with regard tothe recoveries. ( 62 ) AS contended by the learned Additional public Prosecutor, the publication in newspapers cannot be Gospel truth, in the absence of any other material in support of the same. In a given case, the accused for pleading alibi etc. , and to support the same, can get some paper publication made in some news papers and rely on them to show that they were not involved in the incident and to say that on that particular day, they were present elsewhere, away from the scene of offence. Thus, the newspaper publication, itself, would not be sufficient to show that what is published in the newspaper is correct, in the absence of supporting evidence to prove the same. It would be something like police publishing a news item that the accused has committed an offence. To be somewhat crude, it would be something like publishing a news item that the accused had committed an offence and asking the court to accept the news item to prove the guilt of the accused without any evidence. ( 63 ) IN the present case, the paper publication would show that the accused were in police custody even before 19-3-2002, on which date the recoveries were allegedly made from them. It is strongly contended on behalf of the appellants that the circumstance of publication in the newspaper showing that the accused were arrested even by the date of recovery from them, on which date alone the prosecution claimed to have arrested them, is sufficient to throw away the prosecution case. I am not inclined to accept this contention, as, as already referred, the accused, themselves, can get some items of news published in the newspaper in their favour. I am not inclined to accept this contention, as, as already referred, the accused, themselves, can get some items of news published in the newspaper in their favour. The legal position appears to be not different. Section 81 of the indian Evidence Act (for brevity the Act), appears to be the lone provision of Law that deals with newspaper publications. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. did not bring to my notice any other provision of law or authority that deals with newspapers publications. Section 81 of the Act does not contemplate that newspaper publications have to be automatically accepted to be correct. The authorities on the subject show that a statement of fact in a news paper is merely hearsay and is inadmissible in the absence of oral evidence to prove the same. Even an extract from the news paper about the government notifications are also held to be inadmissible in the absence of examination of any one concerned. ( 64 ) THUS unless satisfactory evidence is adduced to show that what was published in the newspaper is true, the same cannot be accepted. ( 65 ) THERE is other material with regard to the recoveries from some of the accused i. e. the evidence of defence witnesses. The evidence of D. W. 1 is that on 14-2-2002 A-9's wife came to him and informed that the police took away her husband and wanted him to accompany her to the police station he went and found A-9 in police lockup. D. W. 1 questioned the Inspector of Police about the detention of A-9 in Police Station, then they informed him that A-9 is one of the accused in vaibhav Jewellary case and he was detained in that case, That D. W. 1 visited the police station regularly and that around 18th or 19th february, 2002, Inspector of Police demanded rs. 1,75, 000/-for the release of A-9 and further informed that on failure to pay the said amount, he would be implicated in this case and that they did not inform the said fact to anybody, as the Circle Inspector of Police promised to release A-9 on payment of amount. On consultation with the family members of A-9, they arranged an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- and paid the same on 16-3-2002 for release of a-9. On consultation with the family members of A-9, they arranged an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- and paid the same on 16-3-2002 for release of a-9. In spite of receiving the amount, the inspector of Police did not release A-9. When he questioned the Inspector of Police about the same, he replied that he could not release a-9 on account of pressure from the higher authorities. ( 66 ) D. W. 5 stated that on 10-2-2002 at about 5. 00 a. m. while he was in his house, three police constables came to his house and called him out of his house and took him to Harbour Police Station in a jeep. Police did not inform him anything about taking him to harbour Police Station and kept him in the lockup. On 14-2-2002 the Sub-Inspector of police sent police constable to his house to inform him about his detention in the police station and that evening his wife and D. W. 1 came to the police station and by that time he was in lick up and the Sub-Inspector of Police was present. When D. W. 1 and his wife questioned the Circle Inspectorof Police about his detention, the Circle Inspector of Police threatened him with dire consequences, if he influences through his wife to get legal action and also demanded Rs. 1,75,000/- for his release. Thereafter, D. W. 1 and his wife were sent away. On 16-3-2002 D. W. 1 gave rs. 1,75,000/-to the Circle Inspectorof Police and that his mother leased out one of their shops for running gold business and their tenant gave Rs. 1,00,000/- and his relatives arranged Rs. 50,000/- and his wife managed rs. 25,000/- and thus, a total sum of rs. 1,75,000/- was paid to the police. ( 67 ) D. W. 8 spoke about paying advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to A-9. D. W. 6 spoke about his arranging Rs. 50,000/- to A-9. Whether giving money by D. Ws. 6 and 8 to the wife of A-9 is correct or not, the fact of payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- by A-9 by way of bribe, looks quite unnatural. ( 68 ) D. W. 8 who took the shop on lease from the mother of A-9 deposed that he paid rs. 1,00,000/- on 9-2-2002 as advance to her. 6 and 8 to the wife of A-9 is correct or not, the fact of payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- by A-9 by way of bribe, looks quite unnatural. ( 68 ) D. W. 8 who took the shop on lease from the mother of A-9 deposed that he paid rs. 1,00,000/- on 9-2-2002 as advance to her. ( 69 ) ACCORDING t A-9, he was taken to illegal custody on 10-2-2002 and they paid the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- as bribe on 16-3-2002 that means according to him for one month six days, he was in illegal police custody and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was demanded as bribe by the Circle Inspector of Police. The silence on the part of A-9 and his wife for all these days without taking any action for illegal detention or for demanding huge amount of rs. 1,75,000/- as bribe, looks totally unnatural and highly unacceptable. A-9 in his cross-examination admitted that he is President of grampanchayat and he is having reputation in his locality. D. W. 5 is a civil contractor and his (A-9's) wife is a corporator and with that back ground it is impossible to believe that they kept quiet without taking any action when a-9 was illegally detained by the police and a bribe of Rs. 1,75,000/- was demanded for releasing him from the illegal custody by the police. Here, it is to be remembered that the claim of A-9 is that initially that amount was demanded as bribe and ultimately A-9 said that the amount was used to show recovery from him. ( 70 ) FURTHER D. W. 1 never stated in his chief-examination the name of the Circle Inspector of Police that demanded bribe and collected rs. 1,75,000/- In the cross-examination, though it is alleged by him that one Ramana was the Inspector of Police of that police station, he did not say that he was the Inspector who collected the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. D. W. 5-A-9 never named the Circle-Inspector of Police who had collected Rs. 1,75,000/ -. Can it be accepted that such a huge amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid to an unknown circle Inspector of Police. Thus, I am not at all inclined to accept the defence case that an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. D. W. 5-A-9 never named the Circle-Inspector of Police who had collected Rs. 1,75,000/ -. Can it be accepted that such a huge amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid to an unknown circle Inspector of Police. Thus, I am not at all inclined to accept the defence case that an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was collected from a-9 by the police initially as bribe and the same was used as the money recovered at his instance. In the circumstances i. e. admission of A-9 that an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was taken from him, coupled with the evidence of p. W. 20 and P. W. 27, shows that this amount was recovered at his instance. ( 71 ) COMING to the case of A-1, who is examined as D. W. 2, he has stated that he worked as honorary President of APSRTC union and he was affiliated to political parties. During second week of February, 2002 ACP (Crimes) took him to Harbour Police Station and accused him of having connection with vaibhav Jewellers case. On 11 -3-2002 he was taken to the State Bankof Hyderabad, M. V. P colony, where he was having fixed deposit, a savings Bank account was got opened and rs. 1,00,000/- was got encashed, the said account was opened without observing the formalities due to the presence of ACP. On the next day again police took him to the bank, locker was opened and gold ornaments in the locker, were taken out by the police and sold away and they have taken the money. That a-1 's in-laws village is Poosapati Rega, police took him to that place on 13-3-2002 where they have threatened his in-laws to sell the land and arrange money. On 14-3-2002 his in-laws sold away their properties under an agreement of sale and gave Rs. 4,25,000/- and that the police threatened them not to inform the same to any body. That on 11 -8-2003 ACP ramarao took away his driver and detained him and that driver's wife filed an application before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam and a search warrant was issued and advocate Commissioner was appointed and driver was found in Police Station and that there is no truth in the arrest and seizure of Rs. 5 lakhs from him. He stated that he has no second wife Neelaveni and he does not know her. 5 lakhs from him. He stated that he has no second wife Neelaveni and he does not know her. He denied the suggestion that he kept his second wife in an apartment situated at Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. He never resided in that apartment. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is having acquaintance with political parties and he is associated with Trade Unions of APSRTC and otherunions in Visakhapatnam. In his evidence d. W. 3 stated that A-1 is his brother-in-law. On 13-3-2002 police came along with A-1 and asked to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- and that they promised to pay within two days. Next day again police came. His mother and grandmother were having landed property at pusapatirega in an extent of Ac. 5. 30 cents in sy. No. 25. They agreed to sell the land for rs. 2,12,000/- and entered in to an agreement and that they were also having a tiled house in pusapatirega with D. No. 4-70, 4-71. For the sale of the said houses, he entered into an agreement for Rs. 4,50,000/- and collected rs. 2,13,000/- as advance. Thus, total sum of rs. 4,25,000/- was given to police on 14-3-2002 itself. ( 72 ) THUS, the evidence of D. W. 2 is that the harbour Police on 2-2-2002 accusing him of having connection with Vaibhav Jewellery case illegally took him into custody. He did not say that he was detained illegally in the police station or elsewhere since then. He stated that on 11 -2-2002 he was taken to State Bank of Hyderabad, M. V. P. Colony where he was having fixed deposit which was encashed and on the next day his bank locker was opened and on the 4th day, he was taken to his in-laws' place and amount was collected. It is not stated by him that during all this period he was in illegal custody. Obviously his detention must have been during the above said period. If the police illegally detained him for such a long period, it is not known as to why search warrant was not taken and as to why no other steps have been taken against his illegal detention. According to him, even for his driver's illegal detention search warrant was taken. Further, the alleged acts of the police, such as, getting bank account and drawing cash of Rs. According to him, even for his driver's illegal detention search warrant was taken. Further, the alleged acts of the police, such as, getting bank account and drawing cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-, then getting his locker opened and taking away gold ornaments and selling it and then going to his in-laws' place and selling land and collecting rs. 4,25,000/-there, look highly unbelievable. As already referred, A-1 is not an innocent person. Even according to him, he had political connections and he was president of APSRTC employees Union. A bunch of photographs filed as Ex. D-14 by A-1 show that he has high political connections. He had photographs with the present Chief Minister, the former chief Ministerand Members of Parliament and participated in several activities. When such was his status, if really police committed such kind of atrocity against him of forcibly opening his bank locker and selling gold and forcibly selling away the lands of his in-laws which happened for over a period of more than a month, there was absolutely no possibility of himself or some one on his behalf not taking any action. Further he did not say as to whom exactly the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and odd was paid. D. W. 2 spoke about the police taking rs. 1,00,000/- said to be encashed through bank account Ex. D-15 - bank pass book. But, no one concerned with the same is examined. Though he spoke about the locker being opened, ornaments being taken and sold by the police and taking away money, he did not say as to how much money was got by selling the gold and which police took away the same. ( 73 ) D. W. 3 brother-in-law of A-1 stated that total amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- was given to the police on 14-3-2002. He did not say to which police officerthe said amount was paid. If they gave such huge amount in such circumstances, they must be in a position to say as to whom exactly i. e. , to which police officer the said amount was paid. Thus, all this story of A-1 that by encashing fixed deposit amount by taking out his gold from locker and by selling the same, by selling land of in-laws, the amounts of more than Rs. Thus, all this story of A-1 that by encashing fixed deposit amount by taking out his gold from locker and by selling the same, by selling land of in-laws, the amounts of more than Rs. 5 lakhs was collected and taken away by the police, and that was shown as the amount recovered from him, is totally unacceptable. His case that the above amount was taken from him shows, that the recovery from him is true. ( 74 ) D. W. 4-A-2 stated that he was taken from his village and Rs. 30,000/- was collected from him. About this aspect reference was already made and his contention that the police collected Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him cannot be accepted. In case, it is his contention that Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him, about which he did not specifically speak in his deposition as he stated that "police arrested me on 12-3-2002 du ring Sivarathri day, police of Visakhapatnam came to my village and took me into custody, and also collected rs. 30,000/- from me," his statement that rs. 30,000/- was collected from him shows that the police recovered Rs. 30,000/- from him is true. ( 75 ) THUS, the recoveries from A-1, A-2 and a-9 can be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt in the above stated circumstances. ( 76 ) AS far as recoveries of the amounts are concerned, though most of the recoveries are on one and the same day, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to A-3 to A-8 with regard to the recoveries, as their case is different from A-1, a-2 and A-9, who, almost, admitted the recoveries and the explanation they tried to give with regard to the amounts recovered from them, is found to be totally unacceptable. ( 77 ) AS A-2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC only, as there is no evidence on record to show that the offence undersection395 IPC was constituted, the finding of the trial Court holding A-1, A-2 and A-9 and other accused who are now being acquitted, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is not in order, as section 412 IPC is attracted only in case there was dacoity. Section 412 IPC reads as follows: "412. Section 412 IPC reads as follows: "412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity:-Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, from the above the offence that would be constituted in this case is only under section 411 IPC and not under Section 495 ipc against A-1, A-2 and A-9 and that they can be found guilty forthe same. Accordingly, their conviction is modified from Section 412 to Section 411 IPC. Crl. A. No. 937 of 2005" ( 78 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2005 is allowed. The conviction and sentence made in judgment dated 14-6-2005 in Sessions case No. 99 of 2002, on the file of the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam against the appellant/a-8-Mohammad Khasim for the offence punishable undersections 120-B and 412 IPC are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of A-8, if any, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-8 shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. A. No. 938 of 2005 ( 79 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2005 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/a-9-Koribilli suresh, by the learned I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S. C. No. 99 of 2002, dated 14-6-2005 for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is converted into one under Section 411 IPC and consequently his sentence is reduced to three years from ten years while maintaining the fine with default sentence. As the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC is not proved against the accused, the same is hereby set aside. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Thefine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-9 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC shall be refunded after appeal time. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Thefine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-9 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. A. No. 939 of 2005 ( 80 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2005 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/a-1 -Mandapati Surya Venkata Krishnam Raju @ krishnam Raju @ M. S. V. K. Raju by the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam in S. C. No. 99 of 2002, dated 14-6-2005 for the offence punishable under section 412 IPC is converted into one under section 411 IPC and consequently his sentence is reduced to three years from ten years while maintaining the fine with default sentence. As the offence punishable under section 120-B IPC is not proved against the accused, the same is hereby set aside. The remand period, if any, undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-1 forthe offence punishable under Section 120-B ipc shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. A. No. 973 of 2005 ( 81 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2005 is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/a-7-Gunuruvenkata satyanarayana alias Srinu, passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam in S. C. No. 99 of 2002 dated 14-06-2005, forthe offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 412 IPC are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of A-7, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant A-7 shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. A. No. 1057 of 2005 ( 82 ) IN the result. Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2005 is allowed. The conviction and sentence made in judgment dated 14-6-2005 in Sessions case No. 99 of 2002, on the file of the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam against the appellant/a-5-Karnam Rajesekhara rao @ Sekhar for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 412 IPC are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of A-5, shall stand cancelled. Thefine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-5 shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. The bail bonds of A-5, shall stand cancelled. Thefine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-5 shall be refunded after appeal time. Crl. A. No. 1195 of 2005 ( 83 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2005 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/a-2-Fakheer Basha @ Chipla, passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam in S. C. No. 99 of 2002, dated 14-6-2005 for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is converted into one under Section 411 IPC and consequently his sentence is reduced to three years from ten years while maintaining the fine with default sentence. His conviction for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is also confirmed, but his sentence forthe said offence is reduced to seven years from ten years while maintaining the fine with default sentence. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. As the offence punishable under Section 120-B ipc is not proved against the accused, the same is hereby set aside. The remand period, if any, undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC shall be refunded after appeal time. ( 84 ) THE conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants -A-3-Vadde Peddanna, A-4-Vadde Subbarayudu and A-6 Vadde venkateswarulu, passed in S. C. No. 99 of 2002, Dated 14-6-2005 by the learned i Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam for the offence punishable undersections 120-B and 412 IPCare hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of A-3, A-4 and A-6, if any, shall stand cancelled. Thefine amount, paid by the appellants-A-3, A-4 and A-6 shall be refunded after appeal time. ( 85 ) THE order with regard to the disposal of case property, as made by the trial Court shall sustain.