This revision is directed against the judg­ment and order, dated 11.07.2003, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 (3)72003, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the convic­tion of the accused-appellants under Section 394IPC, the appeal having been preferred by the accused- petitioners against the judg­ment and order, dated, 21.07.2011, passed, in NGR Case No.205/95, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, North Salmra, Abhayapuri, convicting the accused-petitioners under Section 394 IPC and sen­tencing each of them to suffer rigorous im­prisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default of payment of fine, suf­fer simple imprisonment for three months each.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 07.08.95, at about 11 pm, three persons entered into the house of the informant, Jayanta Das, of Hospital Colony quarter No.9, WardNo.3 of Abhayapuri Civil Hos­pital and threatened him (PW3) and his wife (P W1) with pistol and tied their hands and gagged their mouth. The persons, who had so entered, assaulted the informant, who, on having sustained injury on his index finger, opened, out of fear, his almirah, whereupon the persons, who had so entered into the house of the informant, collected a sum of Rs.700, in cash, and some valuable orna­ments. On being informed by his neighbour, Biren Dutta, that the informant's wife, Sukumari (PW1), had been shouting, Akhil Sharma (P W2), a neighbour of the inform­ant, entered into the house of the informant and, as soon as he entered into the house, his hands were tied and his mouth was gagged by those, who were already inside the house of the informant. Thereafter, the said miscre­ants took to their heels. On the first informa­tion being lodged, in this regard, with the po­lice, at Abhayapuri, a case was registered. During investigation, police apprehended two of the accused-petitioners, namely, Swapan Kumar Ariya and Gopen Roy, while they were proceeding with the booties and seized the recovered properties from their posses­sion. On interrogating the said two accused persons, police came to learn that the said two accused persons, along with accused Hari Das and accused Sajal Kumar Sutradhar, had committed robbery at the house of the inform­ant. This was followed by the arrest of the remaining two accused-persons, namely, Hari Das and Sajal Kumar Sutradhar. The investi­gating officer, then, sent all the arrested ac­cused to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis­trate, Abhayapuri, for recording their confes­sional statements. The confessional state­ments, made by all the four accused, admit­ting their guilt involving themselves in the act of robbery, at the house of the informant, were accordingly recorded and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against all the four accused persons under Section 394 IPC.

3. To a charge, framed at the trial, under Section 394 IPC, all the accused pleaded not guilty thereto.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses includ­ing the investigating officer. The accused per­sons were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforemen­tioned, they admitted to have made the said confessional statements voluntarily. No evi­dence was, however, adduced by the de­fence. On having reached the conclusion that all the four accused persons were guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and pass sentence against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sen­tence passed against them, the convicted per­sons preferred an appeal. As the appeal has been dismissed, the accused persons are, now, before this Court with the present revi­sion.

5. I have heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, and Mr. K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

6. Broadly in