(1.) The petitioners were convicted of the charges under Sections 395,450 and 342 I.P.C. and came to be sentenced variously, the major sentence being five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 700/- in default R.I., for two months, the text of the judgement indicates that these petitioners, except petitioner- appellant 2 Phuman Singh, were the residents of the same village where the incident took place.
(2.) Petitioner Phuman Singh belongs to the village in the nearby. It also clearly appears that the complainant as well as the petitioners were known to each other since prior to the incident. The incident took place during the night between 8th and 9th April,1992. It also appears that these petitioners had not been muffled their faces in order to conceal their identity.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioners brought my attention to the discrepancy in respect of the date of arrest of the petitioners. The significance of the discrepancy is that on it dependants the reliability of recovery of stolen articles at the instance of various accused-petitioners. As per the record, the accused-petitioners came to be arrested on 14.4.1992.