1. Three appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 17.01.2001 passed in S.T. No. 175/2000. Criminal Appeal No. 481/2001 filed by two accused persons Nanbhai and Ramsuphal @ Bhukdu has become infructuous because they have completed the jail sentence and they have withdrawn their appeals. Criminal Appeals No. 288/2001 and 377/2001 still survive. Criminal Appeal No. 288/2001 has been filed by Raju @ Tarkeshwar and Criminal Appeal No. 377/2001 has been filed by Mole Yadav. We would discuss the evidence in regard to two accused persons i.e. Raju @ Tarkeshwar and Mole Yadav.

2. Five accused persons were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under section 396 of IPC. The trial Court held all the accused persons guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 396 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- each appellant.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.5.2000, Rajesh Pandey, who was working as Salesman in a country made liquor shop at Amlai Paper Mills, was coming along with his assistant Banwari Lal Tripathi to Singhpur on a motorbike. He had an amount of Rs.22,000/- in a bag with him. The aforesaid amount had to be deposited in the bank on the next date. When they reached near Besaha river near Dhanpura village, they noticed that Rammitra was standing there. He had a stone with him. Nanbhai and Sukdu were also standing there. They had knife with them. Rammitra abused them and directed to stop the motorbike. Thereafter, Rajesh Pandey stopped the motorbike. Nanbhai made a demand of money for drinking liquor. Banwari had given him Rs.30/- to drink liquor. Nanbhai was still abusing them. Then Rajesh had also given some money to Nanbhai. Thereafter, Sufal inquired from him that what was in the bag. He did not tell Sufal about the bag. Then Nanbhai inflicted a blow on Banwari by knife, which landed on his right palm. Thereafter, Rammitra, Nanbhai and Sukdu entangled with Rajesh Pandey. When Banwari Lal tried to pacify them, Nanbhai inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of Banwari Lal. Nanbhai, Sukdu and Ramsufal had beaten the deceased by knives. Thereafter, Rajesh told Banwari to run away. When Banwari was running, two persons who were standing near a tree had thrown stones at him, however, he did not receive any injury. Banwari reached Dhanpura village and narrated the incident to Ambika Prasad and other persons. They went to the spot but by that time, accused persons had run away from the spot. Rs. 22,000/-, which were kept in the bag, were not in the bag. Rajesh Pandey was lying on the earth. Ambika Prasad and Banwari had taken Rajesh Pandey to hospital. At that time, hospital was closed. Subsequently, brothers of Rajesh Pandey came there. They had taken Rajesh Pandey in a jeep to Dr. A.P. Pathak, who declared him dead. Thereafter, information was sent to the police station and police registered a merg and registered the offence against the accused persons. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against five accused persons. Present appellants and other accused persons abjured their guilt. The Trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 396 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have contended that conviction of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court held the appellants guilty on the basis of seizure of articles, currency notes and some cloths. However, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellants could not be held guilty and the offence against the appellants could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is recovery and seizure of looted property from the possession of the appellants. Cloths of the appellants were also seized, on which blood stains were found. The appellants did not offer any explanation abou