For a conviction under Section 395 IPC, the prosecution must establish the involvement of five persons, and procedural irregularities can lead to acquittal if they affect the trial's integrity.

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by accused 2, 3 and 6 aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/05/2006 in S.C.No.1330/2002 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam by which they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC .

2.The prosecution case is that on 29/03/2001 at 09:00 p.m., the accused six in number, with an intention to commit dacoity, hired taxi car bearing registration no. KL-2H-3969 owned by PW2 and driven by PW1 from the taxi stand near the KSRTC bus stand Kottarakkara. After travelling for some distance, PW1 was physically and forcibly removed from the driver's seat to the space in between the front seat and the back seat. The 2nd accused took over the control of the car. The accused persons after bandaging the hands and legs of PW1, forced him to drink some liquid, due to which he lost consciousness. The accused thereafter abandoned him on the veranda of a tyre workshop bearing no.P.P.No.VII/52 owned by one Gopi Punnappra, Alappuzha. The car was thereafter sold by accused nos.1 and 2 to PW14 through PW12 and pocketed an amount of ₹55,000/- towards the sale consideration. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above mentioned Section.

3.Crime no.270/2001 of Kadakkal police station was registered on the basis of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1 at 06:00 p.m. on 30/03/2001 while he was at the Taluk Hospital, Kottarakkara where he was undergoing treatment. Ext.P1(b) FIR was registered by PW10 based on the FIS of PW1. PWs 16, 15 and 19 had conducted investigation at various stages. On completion of the investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional magistrate. It was reported that the first accused died on 02/01/2002. On appearance of accused 2 to 6 before the jurisdictional magistrate, they were furnished with the copies of all the relevant prosecution records. After complying with all the necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Kollam vide order dated 30/07/2002 in C.P.No.221/2022. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.1330/2002 and thereafter made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc – II, Kollam for trial and disposal. On 30/12/2003, a charge was framed under Section 395 IPC , which was read over and explained to accused 2 to 6 to which they pleaded not guilty.

4.The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and Exts.P1 to P25 series and M.O.1 to M.O.3. Exts.D1 to D4 are the contradictions brought out by the defence in the testimony of PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 9. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

5. As the sessions court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found accused 2, 3 and 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and hence proceeded to sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to a fine of ₹25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for 2 years.

The fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused no.4 and 5 have been acquitted. Aggrieved, A2, A3 and A6 have come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings in the impugned judgment calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused/appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1007/2006. There was no representation for accused no.3 and 6, the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.1004/2006.

Hence, relying