JUDGMENT 1. - These two jail appeals are directed against the judgment dated April 30, 1977 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bundi whereby he convicted the accused appellants under-section 394 IPC & sentenced them to three and a half years' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of which to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on September 1, 1975 at 6 p.m. complainant Balmukand was going in the company of Kalyan on a bicycle. When they reached near the huts of Bhonpas, two young boys intercepted them. One of them inflicted lathi blow on the hand of Kalyan as a result of which the cycle tell down on the ground. Thereafter the same accused inflicted blows on Balmukand as a result of which later sustained four Injuries. At the stage when Balmukand was grappling with one accused, the other one rushed towards him and on the point of a knife relieved Balmukand of his watch, a pair of spects, bush-shirt and an amount of Rs. 350/-. First information report of this occurrence was lodged at the police Station Kotwali, Bundi and the police after investigation submitted a challan against three accused namely Gurmukhsingh, Swaransingh and Indra Singh. The accused appellants were charged of the offences punishable under section 394/397 IPC and the third accused indrasingh was charged under Section 411 I.P.C. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of identification of the accused in the court by PW 4 Balmukand and PW 10 Kalyan seeking corroboration from the test identification parade held on September 19, 1975 under the supervision of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bundi convicted the accused-appellants under section 394 I.P.C. He, however acquitted of the the appellants of the offence punishable under section 397 I.P.C. and the third accused charged under section 411 IPC was also acquitted of the charge levelled against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The two accused appellants were convicted under section 394 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court the two accused appellants have come up in appeals to this court. 5. The two accused appellants were convicted under section 394 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court the two accused appellants have come up in appeals to this court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellants vehemently urged that the accused-appellants Gurmnukhsingh was known to to the complainant Balmukand from a pretty long time and as such if the accused appellants Gurmukhsingh would have participated in the crime then he would have been named in the first information report. He has furthest urged that it does not stand to reason why the complainant could not name the accused appellant Gurmukhsingh while giving the first information report In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the portion of the statement of PW 4 Balmukand wherein he himself admitted under cross-examination that he was a Gram Sevak in the village Moondra and Jarnail Singh father of the accused appellant Gurmukhsingh used to come to his house. He has also placed reliance on the statements of two witnesses DW 1 Gurdayal Singh and DW 2 Swaroop Singh, who stated that the accused Gurmukh Singh was known to the complainant from a pretty long time much prior to the date of the occurrence. He has also referred to the relevant portion of the identification memo, wherein it has been mentioned that the accused asserted before the learned Magistrate holding the that identification parade that they were known to the witnesses. The difficulty in accepting this contention is that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant Gurmukhsingh and his Hali the other accused namely Swaransingh were known to the identifying witnesses. Right from the time when the first information report was lodged till the trial the prosecution case consistently was that accused were unknown culprits that responsible for the offence. PW 4 Balmukand admitted that Jurnailsingh was not named but in the same breath he stated that Jarnail Singh's wife and children were not known to him. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants appearing in the trial court did not persue this matter further in cross-examination. Thus there is nothing to uphold that the accused appellant is yet known to the witness prior to the date of occurrence. A perusal of the first information report Ex. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants appearing in the trial court did not persue this matter further in cross-examination. Thus there is nothing to uphold that the accused appellant is yet known to the witness prior to the date of occurrence. A perusal of the first information report Ex. P/8 shows that the physical features of both the accused appellants have been mentioned in details. The particular part has been assigned to the appellants. From the first information report it appears that the identification witnesses had properly seen the micreams because the miscreants were not for pretty long time on the scene of occurrence and within a very close range. The trial court has believed the evidence of identification and I find no reason to hold otherwise. Besides that there is evidence of recovery of bush shirt from the possession of the accused-appellant Gurmukhsingh. This bush-shirt was identified as one of the dacoit, property. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. PC, has failed to explain as to how he came in possession of the dacoity property. Thus the guilt has been brought home to the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused, appellants under section 394 IPC is maintained. But looking to the young age of the accused-appellants, the sentences awarded to them by the trial court are reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each to rigorous imprisonment for 27 months and a fine of Rs. 50/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the accused appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.Appeal partly allowed. *******