JUDGMENT H. P. Asthana, J. - This is an appeal by four persons, namely, Raja Singh, Bachai Singh, Dularey and Nankoo, who have each been convicted u/s 394 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. It appears that on 9th November, 1952 at about 6 30 p.m. Pyare Lal, resident of village Maupur, Jagannath resident of village Katherwa, and Dwarka resident of Kuthara, were going on their cycles to Kathare; that on the way they were waylaid by the Appellants who were armed with lathis; that Raja Singh accused thrust his lathi into the spokes on the front wheel of the cycle of Pyare Lal on account of which he fell down. It is further alleged that Dwarka, and Jagannath then got down from their cycles; that thereafter the accused Bachai Singh, Dularey and Nankoo forcibly took the cycles of Pyare Lal, Jagannath and Dwarka and ran away with them towards the south; that the accused Raja Singh remained standing near Pyare Lal, Jagannath 2nd Dwarka so that they may not raise any alarm; and that Pyare Lal araised an alarm and he was given lathi blows by Raja Singh. On hearing the alarm Pachu Chauki-dar, Matadin Chowkidar, Girja and Mahabir constable, Shiv Sahai Gupta and Shanker Dayal came there. The accused were chased and were caught with the cycles with which they were running away. They were taken to Police Station Bidhnoo along with the cycles and lathis and Pyare Lal made a report there at 8-30 p.m. After the necessary investigation the accused were sent up for trial. 3. The accused denied that they had committed the robbery for that they were caught with the cycles when they were running away from the scene of occurrence. The accused Raja Singh denied that he had assaulted Pyare Lal when he raised an alarm after the commission of the alleged robbery. 4. Pyare Lal was examined by Dr. 3. The accused denied that they had committed the robbery for that they were caught with the cycles when they were running away from the scene of occurrence. The accused Raja Singh denied that he had assaulted Pyare Lal when he raised an alarm after the commission of the alleged robbery. 4. Pyare Lal was examined by Dr. B.R. Sood, Medical Officer, of U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur, on the 11th November, 1952 at 11-30 a.m. His evidence shows that Pyare Lal had two injuries on his person, one of which was a septic oblique contused wound on the left side of the head 1" above the hair margin and the other was also a contused wound behind the top of the head and that both these injuries were simple and were caused by some blunt weapon like lathi. In view of the above medical evidence there is no doubt that Pyare Lal was beaten with lathi on account of which he received injuries. 5. The prosecution examined Pyare Lal, Dwarka, Jagannath, Girja Shan-kar, Pacha Chowkidar, Mahabir Pd. constable, Sheo Sahai Gupta and Shankar Dayal in order to prove that the accused had committed the robbery and had assaulted Pyare Lal. The evidence about the actual robbery is of the witnesses Pyare Lal, Dwarka and Jagannath. The other witnesses reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm of Pyare Lal when the accused were running away. They gave a chase to the accused and caught them with the cycles which they had snatched from the possession of Pyare Lal, Dwarka and Jagannath. According to the evidence of Girja Shanker, Pachu Ghowkidar, Mata Din and Mahabir constable they were going to Kathara Railway Station from Katherwa on patrol duty that evening and while on their way they had heard an alarm that they had been robbed of their cycles and it was then that they ran towards the scene of the occurrence. The evidence of Sheo Shankar Gupta and Shankar Dayal who came from the side of Kathara is also to the same effect that on hearing the alarm they rushed to the scene of the occurrence and gave a chase to the accused who were caught with the cycles which they bad taken with them. There does not appear any satisfactory reason to disbelieve the evidence of these prosecution witnesses. There does not appear any satisfactory reason to disbelieve the evidence of these prosecution witnesses. It has not been brought out in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses that they have got any enmity with the accused or have got any motive for falsely implicating them in the case. The accused were caught red-handed with the cycles which they had taken from the possession of Pyare Lal, Dwarka and Jagannath. 6. The accused Bachai Singh stated that he was arrested from his village and was taken to Shambhwa Railway Station and from there to the police station along with the other co-accused in a truck; that the sub-inspector asked him if he would again vote against Jang Bahadur and that he was made to sit for four or five days in the police station and the prosecution witnesses were brought there to identify him but they could not identify. The accused Dularey stated that he was arrested in his village at 7 a. m. in the morning and was then taken to the Police Station Bidhnoo in a truck and that he was detained there for four or five days and was tortured. The accused Nankoo stated that there were parties of Mana Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh in village Katara; that he was of the party of Mana Singh and that Jang Bahadur had got him implicated in this case. According to his statement he was arrested from his village at 7 a m. in the morning. 7. None of these accused produced any witness in their defence that they were arrested from their villages and not at the place alleged by the prosecution witnesses. If the accused were arrested in their village there does not appear any reason why they could not produce any evidence to that effect. Moreover, there is no satisfactory explanation in the statements of the accused as to why they were being falsely implicated in the case. 8. In my opinion there is sufficient evidence on the record that the accused waylaid Dwarka, Jagannath and Pyare Lal while they were going to Kathara on their Cycles and deprived them of the cycles, and the accused Raja Singh beat Pyare Lal when he raised an alarm. In the circumstances they have been rightly convicted u/s 394 I.P.C. 9. 8. In my opinion there is sufficient evidence on the record that the accused waylaid Dwarka, Jagannath and Pyare Lal while they were going to Kathara on their Cycles and deprived them of the cycles, and the accused Raja Singh beat Pyare Lal when he raised an alarm. In the circumstances they have been rightly convicted u/s 394 I.P.C. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment is excessive considering the nature of the offence. Highway robbery is a serious offence and is a great menace to the travelling public. In order to put a stop to it and ensure the safety of the persons travelling by the road a deterrent sentence is necessary. In this view of the matter I do not think that the sentence is severe. 10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentences of the Appellants are maintained. As they are in jail they shall serve Out their sentences.