JUDGMENT : M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/State/Complainant against the acquittal Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Chennai, in S.C. No. 230 of 2007, dated 20.11.2008, whereby, acquitting the respondents/A1 to A8, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506(2) and 395 r/w 120(b) IPC. 2. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:- (i) PW-1 is working in a jewellery shop at Madurai. On the instruction of his owner, PW-1 started from Madurai on 06.06.2005, by Vaigai Express, along with PW-2 with cash of Rs. 4 lakhs, bundled in 40 nos. of 100 rupees note for purchasing jewels from Surana Jewellery, Sowcarpet, Chennai and they reached Madras and stayed at Ramesh Lodge, opposite to High Court, Madras. Thereafter, on 07.06.2005, at about 08.00 p.m. they went to purchase gold carrying cash. (ii) On the way, A1 and A2, waylaid and intercepted them and stated to PWs. 1 and 2 that they are suspecting them as Terrorists and asked them to get into an auto and grabbed the cash bag from them. When PWs. 1 and 2 resisted, raised alarm, A1 and A2 attacked, caused injuries to PW-1 and criminally intimated them. On hearing cry, PW-7, a Head Constable on patrol duty along with one Dakshinamoorthy and PW-8 Muthukumar, Sub Inspector of Police came apprehended A1 and A2, took them to C2-Elephant Gate Police Station, where, PW-1 gave a complaint Ex.P1. On enquiry, they came to know that A1 and A2 along with other accused planned and attempted to snatch the money from the possession of PWs. 1 and 2. (iii) PW-27, Kavikumar, Inspector of Police, received the complaint from PW-1, registered a case in crime No. 447 of 2005, for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 506(2), 392 r/w 397 IPC. FIR is Ex.P38. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Recovered the cash of Rs. 4 lakhs, under mahazer Ex.P39, from A1, forwarded to Court, through Form 95 Ex.P44. Recorded the confession statement of A1. (iv) On investigation, it revealed that on 05.06.2005, PW-14, Velpandian, a goldsmith, who used to visit Ravi lodge for meeting the persons relating to his business found 5 persons conspiring together that they had to go to Chennai, one Ravi and Sougath Ali would come to Chennai join them as per plan. Recorded the confession statement of A1. (iv) On investigation, it revealed that on 05.06.2005, PW-14, Velpandian, a goldsmith, who used to visit Ravi lodge for meeting the persons relating to his business found 5 persons conspiring together that they had to go to Chennai, one Ravi and Sougath Ali would come to Chennai join them as per plan. Further, they have to snatch the cash from the persons, who would come to Chennai for purchasing gold. On 06.06.2005, A1/Meenakshi Sundaram, a constable attached to SB CID Office, Madurai, was deputed to handover the tapal in the Chief Office at Chennai. As per plan, on 06.06.2005 at about 12.00 p.m. PW-20/Head Constable, received Telegram from one Mahesh, Udumalpet, addressed to A3/Baskar, informing that A3 mother was serious start immediately, A3 applied two days casual leave for 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005, Telegram is Ex.P27, Leave letter of A3 is Ex.P28. On 05.06.2005, A2 applied causal leave for two days viz. 06.06.2005 and 07.06.2005 stating that his brother Manohar expired at Coimbatore. His leave letter is Ex.P29. All the accused as per plan had reached Chennai to execute their plan. (v) On the basis of the confession of A1, PW-27 took A1 to Tourist Home Lodge, Egmore, where, he arrested the other accused viz. A3 to A6 and seized the vehicle M.O.2 viz. Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN-22-Y-4599, in the presence of witnesses, under mahazer Ex.P40; seized the hotel register, under Form 95, from the receptionist; on the basis of the confession statements given by the accused; PW-27 went to Rajbhavan Lodge; arrested A7 and A8, who were staying there; brought the accused to the police station and handed over them to sentry/para. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence along with A1 And A2, prepared observation mahazer/Ex.P41 and rough sketch/Ex.P42; examined the witness, recorded their statements; sent PW-1 to Government Hospital for treatment through medical memo. PW-18 Dr. Gunasekaran, examined PW-1 issued Ex.P26 A.R. Copy. On 08.06.2006, PW-27 produced the accused before the Court concerned for remand and thereafter, took A1 to A8 in police custody and after examining them, recorded their confession statements, as per the order of the higher officials, he forwarded the case to Central Crime Branch for further investigation. PW-18 Dr. Gunasekaran, examined PW-1 issued Ex.P26 A.R. Copy. On 08.06.2006, PW-27 produced the accused before the Court concerned for remand and thereafter, took A1 to A8 in police custody and after examining them, recorded their confession statements, as per the order of the higher officials, he forwarded the case to Central Crime Branch for further investigation. (vi) On 23.06.2005, at about 12.00 p.m. recovered M.O.3 chain, M.O.4 ring, M.O.5 ring and Samsung Cellphone, M.O.6 from A3 Baskar under Form 95 Ex.P.45, M.O.7 ring, Nokia cell phone M.O.8 from A2 Paneerselvam under Form 95 Ex.P46, M.O.9 chain, M.O.10 ring, M.O.11 ring and Nokia cell phone M.O.12 from A1 Meenakshi Sundaram under Form 95 Ex.P47, M.O.13 Nokia cell phone from A8 Sougath Ali under Form 95 Ex.P48, recovered M.O.14 cellphone from A4 Ravi under Form 95 Ex.P49, M.O.15 LG cell phone from to A5 Marimuthu under Form 95 Ex.P50 and produced the same before the Court on 30.06.2005. (vii) Thereafter, PW-28, Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, examined the witnesses, verified their statements and examined further witnesses. He made requisition vide Ex.P51 before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for conducting test identification parade on the accused persons. PW-15 Mohan Raj, 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, after following the procedures for identification parade, conducted identification parade on 14.07.2005 at Central Jail, Chennai. Proceedings of test identification parade is Ex.P18. PW-16 Metropolitan Magistrate and PW-17 Sambath, 19th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-28 seized the attendance, check in and check out registers from Ramesh Lodge, under Ex.P53. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet as against the persons as stated above. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 28 witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 28 and 55 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P55 and M.Os. 1 to 15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, DW-1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 marked. 4. When the respondents were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. 5. 1 to 28 and 55 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P55 and M.Os. 1 to 15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, DW-1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 marked. 4. When the respondents were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392, 506(2) and 395 r/w 120 (b) IPC and acquitted them, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/State. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court totally disbelieved the evidence of PW-1, who had clearly deposed that he along with PW-2 came from Madurai only for the purpose to purchase gold jewels at Madras for Rs. 4 lakhs on instruction of his owner PW-13. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW-2. The trial Court without any basis, disbelieved the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, without assigning any reason, failed to consider the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8, who clearly narrated the facts and apprehending of A1 and A2 from the scene of occurrence, brought them to police station, produced them before PW-27. PWs. 24 and 25 are the witnesses, who were present in the scene of occurrence, who had stated about the occurrence. 7. In the Police Station, in presence of PW-3, the cash was seized from A1. By the time PW-2 had reached the Police Station. A1 and A2, confession revealed about the complicity of the other accused. Thereafter, the I.O. took A1 and A2 to Tourist Home, where A3 to A6 were apprehended, brought them to the Police Station. Their stay in Tourist Home had been confirmed by PWs. 9 and 10. Thereafter, A7 and A8 were apprehended at Hotel Rajbhavan and brought to Police Station. PW-26 confirms the stay of A7 and A8 in the Hotel. The accused, when brought to the Police Station, PW-1 and PW-2 identified A1, A2 as well as A7 and A8 being the persons present in the scene of occurrence, thereafter the accused were arrested, articles were seized and they were produced for remand along with the seized articles, on next day. The accused, when brought to the Police Station, PW-1 and PW-2 identified A1, A2 as well as A7 and A8 being the persons present in the scene of occurrence, thereafter the accused were arrested, articles were seized and they were produced for remand along with the seized articles, on next day. Since PW-1 was injured, he was referred to Government Hospital, there PW-18 had examined him and issued AR/Ex.P26, thereafter, PWs. 1 and 2 identified A1, A2, A7 and A8 during test identification parade conducted by PW-15. PWs. 1 and 2 had given Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which was recorded by PW-16. PW-14 and one Sadasivam gave 164 statement, which was recorded by PW-17. PW-14 had stated about conspiracy between the accused at Madurai and he had also identified the accused in the Court. 8. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State submits that A1 and A2 were apprehended from the scene of occurrence by PW-7 and PW-8, taken to Police Station, property recovered. Other accused namely A3 to A8 were apprehended, on the confession of A1 and A2. PW-1 and PW-2, identified A1, A2, A7 and A8 being the persons present in scene of occurrence. PW-1 and PW-2 identified the accused during test identification parade, as well in the Court, other witness have corroborated PW-1 and PW-2. Through cogent evidence, prosecution proved the case, the trial Court, without considering the same, has acquitted all the accused. The finding of the trial Court is perverse, hence, prayed for setting aside the Judgment and to convict the accused. 9. The contention of the respondent is that in this case, conspiracy, identification of the accused and recovery had not been proved. PW-27 is the Investigating Officer, who registered Ex.P1/Complaint, took up investigation, A1 was working as constable at SB CID, Madurai and A2 was working as Head Constable at Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai. The statement of A1 was recorded in the presence of PW-3, who had not supported the case of the prosecution. The other witness for confession and recovery was not examined. Based on the confession, the other accused viz. A3 to A6 were brought from Room No. 222, from Tourist Home and the vehicle/M.O.2, TATA Sumo was seized. A7 and A8 were arrested, and brought from Ramesh Lodge. Only personal belongings and vehicle of A3 to A8 have been seized. The other witness for confession and recovery was not examined. Based on the confession, the other accused viz. A3 to A6 were brought from Room No. 222, from Tourist Home and the vehicle/M.O.2, TATA Sumo was seized. A7 and A8 were arrested, and brought from Ramesh Lodge. Only personal belongings and vehicle of A3 to A8 have been seized. Hence, in this case, recovery has not been proved. 10. According to the prosecution, the bag containing cash/M.O.1 was recovered by PW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police and he had produced A1 and A2 along with the cash bag. On the contrary, PW-27/Investigating Officer states that the bag containing cash was recovered from A1. PW-6 is the witness to the observation mahazar/Ex.P.41. He had not supported the case of the prosecution. M.Os. 3 to M.O.11 are the personal belongings of the accused. These recoveries have been shown only through Form 95, not in the presence of any independent witnesses. 11. PW-27 had sent PW-1 for treatment to the Hospital, along with Police Memo. PW-8 accompanied him. PW-18/Doctor, who treated PW-1, found swelling on the right chin and A.R. Copy/Ex.P26 was recorded. PW-1 stated to him that he was attacked by four known persons. There is correction in the four known persons in the complaint as well as in the Accident Register. All the accused were shown arrest on the same day i.e. on 07.06.2005 and produced for remand on the next day i.e. on 08.06.2005. While they were in judicial custody, police custody taken and seizures of personal belongings were made through Form 95. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have conspired together in Ravi Lodge, Madurai, to commit the offence. At that time, PW-14, who happened to be present, seen the accused and he is the witness for conspiracy. Strangely, PW-14, does not whisper about this incident for four days admits that on the same day he knew the arrest of the accused and their photographs flashed in all news papers and Televisions, but he kept quiet and not informed the same. PW-14 latter admits that he knew PW-13/owner of Tamil Nadu Jewellers, Madurai, where PW-1 and PW-2 are employed. PW-27/Investigating Officer admits that PW-13 and PW-14 are good friends. Obviously PW-14 is a got up witness to propagate the theory of conspiracy, thereby, roping in all the persons as accused. PW-14 latter admits that he knew PW-13/owner of Tamil Nadu Jewellers, Madurai, where PW-1 and PW-2 are employed. PW-27/Investigating Officer admits that PW-13 and PW-14 are good friends. Obviously PW-14 is a got up witness to propagate the theory of conspiracy, thereby, roping in all the persons as accused. PW-14 admits that all the accused were identified by him in the Police Station and in view of the same, the conspiracy cannot be believed. The prosecution failed to prove any conspiracy among the accused, hence, the entire case fails. 12. The test identification parade in this case was conducted with considerable delay, nearly after 39 days. It is admitted by the witnesses PWs. 1, 2, 14 and others that the photographs and pictures of the accused were flashed in all the newspapers and as well as in Television Channels. Further, PWs. 1 to 13 admit that they have identified the witnesses in the Police Station. Hence, PWs. 1 and 2 identifying A1, A2, A7 and A8 during test identification parade is of no consequences. 13. PWs. 16 and 17 are the Magistrates, who recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PWs. 1, 2, 14 and one Sadhasivam, the statements are parrot like version. Further it could be seen that A1 was deputed on official duty and A2 and A3 have taken leave for various reasons on 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005. According to PW-14 the witness for conspiracy, the accused had planned to commit the offence on 06.06.2005, but A2 and A3 had taken leave only on 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005. Hence, the accused meeting prior and having conspiracy as spoken to by PW-14, is false. In this case, PW-27/Investigating Officer admits that he had not conducted any investigation with regard to source of income of PW-13 handing over Rs. 4,00,000/- to PWs. 1 and 2. It seen that PW-28/Inspector of CCB had examined PW-13/employer of PWs. 1 and 2 and PW-14/the witness to the conspiracy, on 07.07.2005, after the case was transferred to CCB Police. Hence, the case of conspiracy fails and it is a got up case of the prosecution. 14. The presence of PW-7/Head Constable, and PW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police on patrol duty, in the scene of occurrence, had not been proved by records, despite PWs. 7 and 8 admit that they have pocket book and movement register wherein, their movements are recorded, the same were not produced. 14. The presence of PW-7/Head Constable, and PW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police on patrol duty, in the scene of occurrence, had not been proved by records, despite PWs. 7 and 8 admit that they have pocket book and movement register wherein, their movements are recorded, the same were not produced. PW-8 admitted that A1 and A2 never attempted to escape from the scene of occurrence. Further, PW-7 and 8 have not made any mention as regards the presence of A7 and A8 in the scene of occurrence. It is highly improbable that such act, as projected by the prosecution, could have taken place in a busy place, such as, NSC Bose Road. Due to dispute between the two Police Officers, the accused have been framed in this case. 15. The trial Court, taking into consideration the anomalies and improbabilities of the case, further the witness to the recovery have not supported and no documents have been produced to prove PWs. 7 and 8 were on patrol duty on that day, further PW-14 had failed to inform about the conspiracy hatched by the accused, delay in conduct of test identification parade, further no witness had identified A3 to A6. A7 and A8 have not been properly identified, the identities of the accused and their names were made known to witnesses in the Police Station, further, DW-1 had been examined and D1 and D2 in which it is found that A1 and A2 were called to Police Station merely on suspicion. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the trial Court had acquitted them and there is no reason or ration to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 16. The learned counsel for the accused drew my attention to the recent decision, dated 23.07.2019, rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1475 and 1476 of 2009, Girish Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and would submit that the limits while dealing with appeal against the Judgment of acquittal and the view taken by the trial Court appears to have arrived having regard to the state of evidence to be possible in such cases it does not merits interference to the appellate Court. 17. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire oral and documentary evidence. 18. 17. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire oral and documentary evidence. 18. The witnesses can be broadly classified as follows:- Witness to the occurrence are PW-1, injured victim, PW-2, PW-7/Head Constable; PW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police; PW-24 and PW-25/independent witnesses; Witnesses from Surana Jewellery PW-4, PW-5 and PW-12; Tourist Home Witnesses PW-9 and PW-10 where, A1 to A6 stayed; Hotel Rajbhavan witness PW-26, where A7 and A8 stayed; Ramesh Lodge is the place where PW-1 and PW-2 stayed and documents Ex.P53, P54 and P55. Observation witnesses PW-11 and PW-6, employer of PW-1 and PW-2 is PW-13; PW-3, who turned hostile; witness to the conspiracy is PW-14, who mentioned the name of A4 and A8, identifies A5 and A6 and also A1 to A3. Except A7, he identified all the other accused. Test identification parade was conducted by PW-15 where PW-1 and PW-2 identified A1, A2, A7 and A8. PW-1 and PW-2, 164 statement was recorded by PW-16. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-14 and one Sadhasivam was recorded by PW-17. PW-18 treated PW-1; PW-19 states about A1 being deputed to Chennai on official duty, on 07.06.2005; PW-20 confirms receiving Telegram about A3 mother seriously ill and A3 taken leave on 07.06.2005 and 08.06.2005; PW-21 and PW-22 state about A2 availing leave on 06.06.2005 and 07.06.2005, on the reason that his cousin brother expired; PW-27/Inspector, Elephant Gate; PW-28 Inspector/CCB; DW-1, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirumangalam, through whom Exs.D1 and D2 the statements, given by PW-8 and one Dakshinamurthy, constable, has been marked, as Exp. D1 and D2. As per Exp. D1 and D2, the presence of A1 and A2, in the scene of occurrence, is admitted. 19. PWs. 1 and 2, are employees of PW-13, who had travelled from Madurai to Chennai, carrying with them Rs. 4,00,000/- to purchase gold. They reached Chennai, waiting for instructions from PW-13. After receiving instructions from PW-13, on 07.06.2005, they proceeded to the Surana Jewellery, to buy jewels. The cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- was carried in M.O.1/bag and while they were proceeding in NSC Bose Road, the hub of gold business, A1 and A2 accustomed/them. A1 caught hold of PW-1 stating that they are suspecting them as Terrorists and asked them to get into an auto and A2 grabbed the cash bag from them. They had threatened PW-2. PW-1 raised alarm, thereafter, PWs. A1 caught hold of PW-1 stating that they are suspecting them as Terrorists and asked them to get into an auto and A2 grabbed the cash bag from them. They had threatened PW-2. PW-1 raised alarm, thereafter, PWs. 7 and 8, with other police personnel, who were on patrol duty, with the help of public, had caught hold of A1 and A2, taken them to Police Station, along with PW-1 and cash. By the time, PW-2 had also reached the Police Station. This was witnessed by PW-24 and PW-25. 20. Ex.P1/Complaint was lodged by PW-1. PW-27 had recovered the cash, the recovery was recorded. Thereafter, on the confession of A1, the complicity of other accused came to be known, they were secured and produced. In this case, the presence of A1 and A2, in the scene of occurrence, caught hold of PW-1, snatching away bag/M.O.1, with cash has been clearly spoken to by PWs. 1. And 2, PWs. 7 and 8, who had reached the scene of occurrence, immediately caught A1 and A2 red-handed, took PW-1 along with them to the Police Station. These have been witnessed by PWs. 24 and 25. 21. Further, during test identification parade as well as in the Court, A1 and A2 have been clearly identified by PWs. 1 and 2 as well as the other witnesses. PW-13, the employer of PWs. 1 and 2 states about PWs. 1 and 2 going to Chennai to purchase gold. PWs. 4, 5 and 12 are the witnesses of Surana Jewellery, who state about the gold business with PW-13. The cash was claimed by PW-13, who filed necessary petition before the Magistrate Court The cash was returned to him. There is no counter claim for the same. PW-27, reached the scene of occurrence, PW-27, on receipt of complaint, immediately registered the FIR, recorded the arrest of accused, and seizure of cash and thereafter, secured the other accused, brought them to Police Station, who are all identified by PWs. 1 and 2. Thereafter, produced them before the remanding court, got them remanded and finding that A1 to A3 are from Police Department, made enquiries and recorded the statement of PWs. 19 to 22. PW-19 states about A1 being deputed to Chennai, for handing over Tapal. PWs. 1 and 2. Thereafter, produced them before the remanding court, got them remanded and finding that A1 to A3 are from Police Department, made enquiries and recorded the statement of PWs. 19 to 22. PW-19 states about A1 being deputed to Chennai, for handing over Tapal. PWs. 21 and 22 state about A2 working in Tirumangalam Police Station, receiving letter submitted by A2 stating that his brother has passed away and obtained leave for two days on 06.06.2005 and 07.06.2005. A3 received a Telegram, as though his mother was seriously ill and he had taken leave on 07.06.2005. 22. Thus, the accused viz. A1 and A2's presence in Chennai, is not disputed, further fortified by examining DW-1 and marking Exs.D1 and D2 wherein it is stated that they were taken to Elephant Gate Police Station on the ground of suspicion. Hence, their presence in Chennai and in the scene of occurrence, at the relevant time, is not in dispute. Further, PWs. 7 and 8 have clearly stated about securing A1 and A2 with cash in M.O.1/bag, in the scene of occurrence, taken A1 and A2 along with PW-1 to the Police Station, which has been witnessed by PWs. 24 and 25. PW-2 along with PW-12 had reached the Police Station immediately. Thus, the accused attempt to take away M.O.1/bag with cash, arrest and recovery proved further accused were produced before the Magistrate and thereafter, identification parade conducted. PWs. 1 and 2 clearly identified the accused, PW-1 and PW-2 gave 164 statement, their evidence is consistent, natural and reliable. 23. As regards the case of conspiracy and pursuant to the conspiracy, the arrest of A3 to A8, recovery of M.O.2/TATA Sumo vehicle, belonging to A5 and M.Os.3 to 11, the personal belongings of the accused, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of PW-14, the witness to the conspiracy, who seems to have seen some of the accused in Ravi Lodge at Madurai prior to the occurrence. PW-14 not immediately informing PW-13, who is in the same gold business, after coming to know about the incident through media and not informing PW-13 about the same. Further, it is found that PWs. 13 and 14 are good friends. Hence, PW-14 evidence is with suspicion, undependable cannot be relied. 24. PW-14 not immediately informing PW-13, who is in the same gold business, after coming to know about the incident through media and not informing PW-13 about the same. Further, it is found that PWs. 13 and 14 are good friends. Hence, PW-14 evidence is with suspicion, undependable cannot be relied. 24. In view of the same, this Court finds conspiracy is not proved in this case, further, no witnesses have identified A3 to A6 in this Case, A7 and A8's identity in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful, not conclusively proved, this Court confirms the acquittal of A3 to A8, rendered by the trial Court. 25. As regards A1 and A2, as stated above, this Court finds from the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 24, 25, 19, 21, 22 and from DW-1 that the presence and commission of offence by A1 and A2 have been proved. In view of the same, the Judgment of acquittal by the trial Court, as regards A1 and A2, is set aside and they are liable to be convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506(ii) of IPC, and is convicted accordingly. 26. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is partly-allowed, setting aside the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Chennai, in S.C. No. 230 of 2007, dated 20.11.2008, to the extent indicated above. 27. The learned counsel appearing for accused shall inform the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to personally remain present before this Court on 13.03.2020. This Court adjourns the case for hearing the accused Nos. 1 and 2, on the question of sentence. 28. For hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence, Registry is directed to list the appeal on 13.03.2020, under the caption, for the appearance of A1 and A2.