S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appellant I along with two others, namely Kali Singh and Shaheed Ahmed alias Mirchu Sapera were tried for offences under Sections 392/397 I. P. C. Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, by his judgment dated 28-2-1981, in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1980 acquitted Kali Singh and Shaheed Ahmed, but convicted the appellant and sentenced him to R. I. for eight years. Aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. A counsel had been provided to the appellant, who was heard. ( 2 ) SAKUNTIBAL (PW. 3) is the wife of Nathuni Prasad (P. W. 1), Sonkunwar (P. W. 2) is the mother of Nathuni Prasad. These persons are residents of village Katora. P. S. Patna, Nathuni Prasad has a uensil shop and does agriculture also. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that in the morning of 17-6-1980 at about 9. 00 A. M. acquitted accused Kali Singh and Saheed Ahmed had come to the house of Nathuni Prasad and asked him whether he would be willing to purchase BATUA (utensil ). Nathuni Prasad told them that he would be able to offer the price after seeing the BATUA. Thereafter the two acquitted accused went away. In the same night at about 1. 00 to 1. 30 A. M. Nathuni Prasad on hearing some noise got up from the sleep. In the meantime one of the culprits who was holding a country made pistol reached and slapped Nathuni Prasad. Another culprit was holding a knife. On that threat, Nathuni Prasad was asked to lie down. Hearing the noise Sakuntibai (P. W. 3) who was sleeping in the adjoining room and Sonkunwar (P. W. 2) who was in the other adjoining room got up. In another room Nandlal a younger brother of Nathuni Prasad and his wife Premabai were also sleeping. In another PA-RCHHI Virendra Kumar and other two sons of Nathuni Prasad were also sleeping. The culprit holding the knife went into the room where Nandlal and his wife were sleeping and the culprit who was holding the country made pistol was on guard at Nathuni Prasad. One of the Culprits removed a gold chain which Sakuntibai was wearing. The culprit holding the pistol asked Sonkunwar to handover the ear gold tops and the keys. The culprit holding the knife went into the room where Nandlal and his wife were sleeping and the culprit who was holding the country made pistol was on guard at Nathuni Prasad. One of the Culprits removed a gold chain which Sakuntibai was wearing. The culprit holding the pistol asked Sonkunwar to handover the ear gold tops and the keys. ( 4 ) NATHUNI Prasad on getting on opportunity caught hold of the hand of the culprit who was holding the pistol and then they grappled with each other. One of the culprits inflicted a knife blow on Natauni Prasad, but the latter did not leave the culprit whom he had been holding earlier. On shouts being raised the culprit holding the knife ran away after opening the door. He exploded some crakers also. ( 5 ) THE grappling between Nathuni Prasad and one of the culprits continued and in the meantime Nandlal also joined Nathuni Prasad. On hearing the shouts, Chaituram (P. W. 4), Mohanram (P. W. 10), Moharsai (P. W. 12) and others reached there. Thus one of the culprits was apprehended who on being asked disclosed his name to be Pooran Singh who is the present appellant. It was this appellant who had disclosed the names of the two acquitted accused also. ( 6 ) THE same night, appellant Pooran Singh was taken by these persons to police station, Patna along with the country made pistol, two cartridges and the knife. Nathuni Prasad (P. W. j) lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1 which was recorded by Sub-Inspector A. Minj (P. W. 13 ). On being produced by Nathuni Prasad, the country made pistol, the two cartridges and the RAMPURI I knife were seized vide memorandum Ex. P. 2. The BANIYAN which Nathuni Prasad was wearing had blood like stains and so that also I was seized vide memorandum Ex. P. 3. The Sub- Inspector had gone to the spot in the morning and effected seizures of certain articles vide memorandums Ex. P. 12 and Ex:p. 13. ( 7 ) NATHUNI Prasad (P. W. J), Sonkunwar (P. W. 2), Nandlal the brother of Nathuni Prasad and the appellant were sent to the hospital for examination of their injuries. Dr. Kundu (P. W. 8) had examined them on 18-6-1980. Nathuni Prasad had an incised wound on the head besides an abrasion. P. 12 and Ex:p. 13. ( 7 ) NATHUNI Prasad (P. W. J), Sonkunwar (P. W. 2), Nandlal the brother of Nathuni Prasad and the appellant were sent to the hospital for examination of their injuries. Dr. Kundu (P. W. 8) had examined them on 18-6-1980. Nathuni Prasad had an incised wound on the head besides an abrasion. Sonkunwar also had injuries on her body. Nandlal also had different injuries. Appellant Pooran Singh had contusions and a lacerated wound. All these injuries have been described by Dr. Kundu in his evidence. These injuries to each one of them were, however, simple in nature. ( 8 ) ON 19-6-1980 a watch allegedly belonging to Pooran Singh and a broken gold chain on being produced by Nathuni Prasad were seized by the sub-inspector vide memorandum Ex. P. 4. Kailash Nath Singh (P. W. 11) liad conducted an identification parade with regard to the gold chain OP 17- 7-1980. Sakuntibai (P. W. 3) had identified that gold chain in those proceedings. Ex. P. 14 is the identification memorandum. ( 9 ) THE country made pistol and the two mis-fired cartridges were also sent for examination. Ex. P. 20 is the report of that examination. ( 10 ) APPELLANT Pooran Singh in his examination denied the prosecution allegations. With regard to his injuries he stated that the police had beaten him at the police station. He further stated that he deals in vegetable and because of his having missed the train he got stuck at Katora. At about the mid-night there was some commotion at which the police and the villagers came there and took him away on suspicion. He did not examine any witness in defence. ( 11 ) IN the evidence of Nathuni Prasad (P. W. 1), Sonkunwar (P. W. 1) and Sakuntibai (P. W. 3 ). The details as to holy they were dealt with by the culprits have been given out. Nathuni Prasad (P. W. 1) had caught hold of the appellant. As is apparent from the evidence of Nathuni Prasad, he getting an opportunity picked courage to hold the appellant's hand in which he was holding the pistol, because (he appellant had threatened his mother Sonkunwar. This was after when Sonkunwar had already been injured by another culprit. Nathuni Prasad (P. W. 1) had caught hold of the appellant. As is apparent from the evidence of Nathuni Prasad, he getting an opportunity picked courage to hold the appellant's hand in which he was holding the pistol, because (he appellant had threatened his mother Sonkunwar. This was after when Sonkunwar had already been injured by another culprit. After having caught hold of the appellant there had been grappling between him and Nathuni Prasad, which besides Nathuni Prasad, has been stated by the other inmates of house, namely Sonkunwar (P. W. 2) and Sakuntibai (P. W. I ). In the circumstances the other culprits fled away. On hearing the shouts, some persons from the village including Chaituram (P. W. 4), Mohanram (P. W. 12), and Moharsai (P. W. 12) had also arrived there. It has further come in the evidence that the appellant was taken to the police station where he was handed over. At the police station, the pistol and cartridges were also seized. ( 12 ) THE appellant and his other associates had entered in the house by concealing their presence. As is the evidence of the inmates of the house, they had gone there for robbery. The gold chain of Sakuntibai had been removed from the neck, but it appears that in the melee and consequent to one of the culprits being caught hold of that gold chain could not be taken away and was left there, which was subsequently seized on being prodnced by Nathuni Prasad. This gold chain was found in the KHALIYAN which adjoins the house of Nathuni Prasad. This chain has been identified by Sakuntibai (P. W. 3 ). In the first information report Ex. P. 1, there is a reference of the gold chain having been snatched from the neck of Sakuntibai (P. W. 3 ). Subsequently, the gold chain having been found was produced by Nathuni Prasad. ( 13 ) THERE is thus ample evidence that the appellant was one of the culprits amongst the robbers who had entered into the house of Nathuni Parsad in that night for committing the robbery. A gold- chain had also been by then snatched from the neck of Sakuntibai, but on appellants being caught hold of, the other actions of the culprits were thwarted. In the circumstances, the other culprits ran away leaving Pooran Singh to his fate. A gold- chain had also been by then snatched from the neck of Sakuntibai, but on appellants being caught hold of, the other actions of the culprits were thwarted. In the circumstances, the other culprits ran away leaving Pooran Singh to his fate. ( 14 ) IT is not only Nathuni Prasad and the other inmates of the house who state about the appellant having been caught hold of at the spot, but the other villagers, namely Chaituram (P. W. 4), Mohanram (P. W. 10) and Moharsai (P. W. 12) have also deposed that on hearing the shouts and commotion, they had gone to the spot and had seen that Nathuni Prasad was holding the appellant. There is nothing to suggest that these witnesses will have any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. His plea that he was caught and taken to the police station from the railway station, is in the circumstances, a total falsehood. ( 15 ) THE appellant was armed with a country made pistol and Sonkunwar had also received injuries. In view of the evidence and the circumstances, the offence against the appellant would clearly be one under Section 392/ 397 I. P. C. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant be informed about the result of the appeal. Appeal dismissed .