Short Note : 1. The accused appellants were convicted under section 394 read with section 398 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. Held : The conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of P.W. 1 Chunki. She is corroborated by P.W. 2 Nandu, P.W. 3 Fattu and P.W. 4. Kalia P.W. 1 Chunki deposed that when she was going to her village she was stopped by the appellants who had bows and arrows with them. She further deposed that she was beaten with Kamti. But this part of her statement is not corroborated by the FIR. In the first information report she has merely stated that she was slapped by the appellants She did not state in the F.I.R. that the appellants used the bows and arrows when they robbed her Odhni. The bows and arrows are the conventional weapons which the appellants carry with them. According to the statement of P.W. 1 Chunkibai, the appellants had snatched the Odhni from her person and went away and thereafter, she raised an alarm and other persons came, chased them and recovered the Odhni from them. In the circumstances the offence under section 394 was complete and if deadly weapons were used the provisions of section 397 would be attracted. The trial Court held the appellants guilty under section 394 IPC read with section 398 IPC. 398 IPC is attracted only when there was an attempt to commit robbery. In the present case the offence of robbery was complete and therefore the provisions of section 398 IPC were not attracted. On the evidence of P. W. 1 Chunki, it is clear that the appellants did not use deadly weapons in committing robbery. They also did not cause grievous hurt or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. In the circumstances, the provisions of section 397 IPC are not attracted. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, under section 394 read with section 398 IPC is set aside and instead they are convicted under section 394 IPC.