1. As the above two appeals are arising out of the same judgment and the facts and circumstances as well as the question of law involved are identical, these two appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The judgment, under challenge in these appeals, is dated 27/08/2011 in S.C.No.468 of 2009 of the court of Sessions, Thalassery, in which, the prosecution, laid charge against altogether five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 398 read with Section 34 and 414 of the I.P.C., among which A5 was absconding and out of 4 accused, who faced the prosecution, A4 is acquitted of all the charges. A1 to A3 are found guilty under Sections 392 and 398 of I.P.C. But they are acquitted for the offence under Section 414 and 34 of the I.P.C. Thus challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against A3, he preferred Crl.A.No.1922 of 2011, whereas Crl.A.No.207 of 2012 is preferred by the first accused. Suffice to say, A2 in the above case has not chosen to file an appeal, challenging his conviction and the sentence.

3. The prosecution case is that on 06/03/2009 at 5.30 a.m., near the third platform of Kannur Railway Station, at a tro