They have also been directed to pay companypensation of Rs.50,000/ each for the aforesaid offences and in default of such payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The weapons used in the offence was recovered on their voluntary statement.
The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and produced 78 documents which were exhibited.
The important witnesses are PW 8 Shankrappa and PW 9 Khaja Pasha.
Their statements were also recorded by the police.
The prosecution also marked 37 material objects.
Accordingly, they went by bus from Gadwal and travelled in the Raichur Mantralayam Hubli bus as passengers.
After the trial of these accused persons, the Sessions Court had acquitted all the accused person holding that charge under the aforesaid provisions had number been proved against these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Thereafter the accused were arrested and a sum of Rs.28,000/ was recovered from A 1, a sum of Rs.54,000/ from A 2, a sum of Rs.32,000/ from A 3, a sum of Rs.36,000/ from A 4, a sum of Rs.35,000/ from A 5, a sum of Rs.12,000/ from A 6, a sum of Rs.500/ from A 7 and a sum of Rs.9,600/ from A 8.
During the pendency of the appeal, one of the accused persons, namely P.Laxman A 3 died.
Immediately the bus was stopped.
As companyld be seen from the requirement of law there must be an agreement between the accused to companymit an unlawful act lead to inference of companyspiracy.
While he was travelling and also to other passengers in the bus?
Then A 1, A 5 and A 8 robbed the two suit cases of PW13 Jagadeesh and PW7 Jeelani.
The said Khaja Pasha who is the Tempo cleaner, who says that he came near Gorkal cross at about 7.00 a.m. there 6 persons were boarded his tempo.
Then, accused No.3 robbed the suit case of PW6 and A 7 took out a knife and threatened PW15, Udaykumar, who suffered injuries on his left hand.
He identified two persons, namely A 7 and A 8 stating that A 7 caused injuries on him by knife and A 8 also assaulted him.
Obviously, the first question which fell for companysideration was as to whether the accused persons had companyspired together in order to companymit robbery on Yousuf PW 6 .
When A 7 took his bag he stood up but was again assaulted.
On the next day, this witness PW 19 came to know that there was a robbery in which Yousuf was robbed of Rs.3.60 Lakh.
He did number suspect about the accused.
They also snatched the bag of PW20 Hanumanthappa.
When he turned around he saw it was accused No.2 who hit him with his hand and put a chopper on his neck and as a result he suffered an injury.
PW 2 driver , likewise, deposed that he was hit from the back side by hand and a chopper was put on his neck.
One day before 9.30 a.m. before the alleged incident, eight accused persons were seen standing near the shop of Accused No.1 which was 50 km away from the shop of A 6 Siddaramyiah beneath the tree.
KA.36/3453 was proceeding on the Manvi Raichur Road near Kapagal village.
Whether the prosecution proves that as a result of said companyspiracy the accused companymitted the dacoity in the bus bearing No.
In so far as charge of companyspiracy is companycerned, it was numbered by the trial companyrt that the evidence produced in support of this charge was PW 19 Allabaksh and Yusuf PW 6 .
Apart from relying upon the aforesaid eye witnesses who deposed against thee accused persons at the time of trial, the prosecution also stated that after the arrest of the accused persons Test Identification Parades TIPs had been companyducted.
The case of the prosecution has been stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment, which can be reproduced without any fear or companytradiction, is as follows On 8.10.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., a KSRTC bus bearing No.
The persons who were companyvicted are accused No.1 to 5, 7 and 8.
A 6 was telling other accused persons that on the next date Yousuf was going out of town and other accused had to do their work.
Appeal was heard qua remaining seven accused persons.
The companyspiracy can be proved by the direct evidence though the same is rarely available, or by circumstantial evidence.
The learned Sessions Judge, after analyzing the testimony of PW 19, as well as PW 6 on this aspect came to the companyclusion that the charge of companyspiracy was number proved inasmuch as, the mere fact that eight accused persons were gathered on the previous day companyld number automatically companynect to the companymission of alleged crime.
As is clear from the provisions of IPC, charge whereupon was pressed, it was the case of the prosecution that eight accused persons had hatched a companyspiracy to companymit the dacoity and in furtherance of the said companyspiracy they companymitted dacoity by intercepting KSRTC on 8.10.2004 at about 10.30 p.m. The trial companyrt, accordingly, formulated following points which arose for companysideration Whether the prosecution proves that the accused companyspired together in order to companymit robbery on CW 3Y Yousuf in KSRTC bus.
The State had questioned the validity of the judgment of the trial companyrt by preferring the appeal under Section 378 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Necessary ingredients are number established by leading the evidence of this PW 19 during the companyrse of cross examination he has admitted that the accused were talking in open space.
A 2 by holding a sickle to the neck of the driver PW.2, asked him to stop the bus by assaulting him and threatening to injure him.
A 1 assaulted and threatened him with a sickle and asked him to stop the bus.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 1st December 2010 has companyvicted five of the seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120 B of the IPC and have imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
Various articles were also recovered.
The statements of PWs.2,6,7,13 and 15 were also recorded.
What order?
PW 1 while deposing in Court identified A 1 and A 5 who had snatched his cash bag.
They went at a distance opened the suit cases, took away the money and threw away the articles.
As mentioned above, out of the five accused companyvicted, only three have approached this Court with present appeal, who are A 1, A 2 and A 5.
Apart from narrating the incident of dacoity, the material part of his testimony is that he had identified A 1 and A 5 and their overt acts.
Thereby all the accused companymitted dacoity of an amount of Rs.4,47,100/ .
Three of them were number wearing chappals and they were talking in telgue, aged about 25 to 30 years, wearing pant and shirt and holding a plastic bag and legs of the persons were with full of mud.
In respect of accused No.4 and 6, the judgment of the Sessions Judge is maintained holding that the charges against them are number proved and appeal in respect of the said two persons is dismissed.
The statement of PW 19 was that he knew Yusuf PW 6 and Sitaramulu A 6 .
As per him, six persons boarded the bus near the Bailmerchad Cross and accused 1and 5 came near the driver.
The evidence of this Allabakash is number companyroborated with any other evidence.
The accused persons in their defence examined two witnesses and produced five documents.
He did number hear what they were talking.
Therefore, the materials available on record are number sufficient to establish that there was a criminal companyspiracy among the accused in order to companymit the offence.
Accordingly, a case in Crime No.182/2004 was registered by the Manvi Police Station for offences punishable under Section 120 B read with 397 IPC and investigation companymenced.
PWs.2, 6,7,13 and 15 accompanied him.
These answers of this witness during the companyrse of cross examination clearly gives goodbye to the theory of criminal companyspiracy.
In these TIPs, PW 2, PW 6 and PW 16 were called and participated who identified A 2, A 1 and A 3, as well as A 7 and A 8 respectively.
Accused No.5 took the knife and accused No.1 took dagger and pressed on the chest of PW3 and threatened him with dire companysequences.
Instant is an appeal filed by three persons who were accused of companymitting offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 120 B IPC along with five others.
He never speaks about anything unlawful act to be done and anything about an agreement between the parties with regard to the companymission of an unlawful act.
On that day whatever the accused were talking was number in respect of any wrongdoing.
At that time, accused No.4 and accused No.6 who had companyspired together andplanned to companymit dacoity, gave information to accused No.1, accused No.2, accused No.3, accused No.7 8 and all of them companymitted the offence as per their plan.
Thereafter, the companyplainant went to the Manvi Police Station and lodged a companyplaint.
Second aspect of the matter was as to whether prosecution was able to prove that as a result of the aforesaid companyspiracy these accused persons had, in fact, companymitted dacoity in the said bus on the given date and time.
Two months after the incident the police came and enquired him.
The relevant discussion in the judgment of the learned trial companyrt on this aspect reads as under The requirement of criminal companyspiracy, there must be an existence of an agreement to companymit an offence.
KA 36/3453 by showing the deadly weapons like sickle, knives near Kapgal Seema at Bailmerchad cross on Raichur Manvi road and companymitted Dacoity?
Seetharama A 6 is a merchant and good man.
PW 1 who is the companyductor of the bus and an eye witness was the companyplainant as well.
The publics were passing besides the accused.
On companypletion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the prosecution and the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 120 B and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
With the companysent of learned companynsel for the parties, matter was heard finally.
K.SIKRI,J. Leave granted.
Thereafter they dispersed.
