ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/A.1 and A.3 for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in S.C.No.255 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta, dated 31.05.2008, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Guntur at Narasaraopet dated 18.12.2008. The revision petitioners herein are A1 and A3. The respondent herein is the State represented by Public Prosecutor.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

a. On the intervening night of 27/28-09-2005 at about 24:00 hours mid night, A1 to A5 armed with plastic guns appearing as real weapons, claiming themselves as Naxals, gained entry into the house of de facto-Complainant viz., Aravapalli Kondala Rao (P.W.1) and put him in fear by pointing the weapon and made dacoity of cash of Rs.5,000/- and 12 items of gold ornaments weighing 13 in sovereigns, apart from Rs.1,000/- cash and with the assistance of P.W.1 and his son P.W.4 secured the presence of P.W.2, who is brother of P.W.1 at his rice mill and committed dacoity of cash of Rs.1,70,000/- which was kept in a zip bag and threatened them over a phone not to disclose the incident to anybody.

b. Out of the fear, they kept quiet till 03.10.2005. On that day, on the complaint made by P.W.1 vide Ex.P1, a case has been registered in Ipur Police Station. While so, on 18.03.2006 during the investigation of a case in another crime by Gurajala Police, they caught hold the accused and during confession, the accused revealed the commission of offence in this Crime. Then the police recovered the stolen ornaments and stolen cash of Rs.2,000/- pertaining to this Crime. During the police custody, in the presence of mediators, zip bag was recovered which contains cash of Rs.2,000/-.

c. Test identification parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate of Narasaraopet and witnesses identified the accused. Wife of de facto-complainant viz., Padmavathi identified the gold ornaments. On completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused and also deposited the property before the trial Court.

3. During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 witnesses were examined and Exs. P1 to P32 documents were marked and Material Object Nos. 1 to 13 were placed before the Court. Ex.D1 is the contradiction marked in the evidence of P.W.3 on behalf of the defence. The defence is of total denial.

4. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after completion of both counsel, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for 60 days each. The case against A2, A4 and A5 ended in acquittal.

5. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against A1 and A3 carried the matter in Appeal before the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Guntur at Narasaraopet i.e., 1st Appellate Court confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 3 years.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment confirming the conviction, A1 and A3 preferred the present revision on the grounds that, the learned t