K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. At the time of hearing IA No.1/2016 in Crl.A.No.839/2016 and IA No.2/2016 in Crl.A.No.1709/2016 filed for suspension of sentence, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that in view of the memo filed by the learned Counsels for the appellants that they are not pressing the appeal sofar as the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 394 of IPC and u/s.25A of the Arms Act, but only challenges the conviction and sentence passed u/s.394 of IPC, the above said two appeals are taken up together, heard on the merits itself, and disposed off.

2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1709/2016 is arrayed as A1, wherein the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.839/2016 is arrayed as A2 originally in Crime No.59/2010 on the file of the Sringeri Police Station. Subsequently, as A2 was absconding, his case was split up. A Sessions Case No.86/2012 was registered sofar as A1 is concerned and SC No.3/2013 has been registered against A2 is concerned after securing his presence by the trial Court. The above said two accused tried separately in the above said two cases separately. However, both are convicted for the offences punishable u/s.353, 332 and 394 of IPC and in addition, A1 was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 25A of the Arms Act. Though there are two judgments rendered sofar as A1 and A2 are concerned, the origin of the case is one and the same and the allegations made against both the accused are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature and arising out of the same cause of action. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together sofar it relates to judgment of conviction and sentence passed with regard to Section 394 of IPC.

3. In view of the memos filed by the Counsels appearing for the accused, there is no need for this Court to refer to the details of the evidence recorded in both the cases and the judgment and the reasonings given in the two judgments with reference to the offences punishable u/s.353, 332 and as well u/s.25A of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, it goes without saying that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the above said two Sessions Cases deserves to be confirmed sofar as the offences as noted above u/s.353, 332 of IPC and Section 25A of the Indian Arms Act.

4. In the above said background, this Court is called upon to ascertain whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the above said two Sessions Cases sofar it relates to Section 394 of IPC is concerned and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- is proper and correct.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader in this regard. I have also carefully perused the judgments of the trial Court in the above said two cases and the evidence recorded by the trial Court.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contends before this Court that the offence u/s.394 of IPC is not at all made out because no ingredients of Section 394 of IPC is canvassed by the prosecution. Even at the initial stages i.e., at the time of filing of the charge sheet or during the course of evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court, no material facts are placed attracting the provision under Section 394 of IPC. Even without considering the ingredients of the said Section with reference to charge sheet and the evidence, the trial Court has erroneously recorded its finding holding that the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC which is not in accordance with law facts and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that though there is no specific averment made in the charge she