G. R. Luthra ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against a judgment of Shri K S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Four persons including the present appellants were charged in respect of commission of officers punishable under section 392 read with section 397 JPC. He convicted eachof the appellants for an offence punishable under section 392 read with section34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for tenyears and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default of payment of which fine, he had toundergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hukam Chand coaccused was acquitted while the remaining co-accused Hari Siagh was convictedin respect of commission of an offence punishable under section 411 JPC andwas awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine ofrs. 100. 00 in default of payment of which he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution briefly is as follows. On 19/12/1981, Uma Nath Sharma (PW 6) was working with M/s. Green Carriers andcontractors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) as a deliveryclerk at G-68, Boulevard Road, Delhi. On that day, Hari Prakash (PW 3)who was a cashier in the said company, collected Rs. 2,500. 00 from variouscustomers as transport charges. He gave that amount to Uma Nath Sharmafor depositing the same with office of the company at Naya Bazar. On thesame day, Dalip Kumar (PW 1) who was also working as a cashier in thesame company gave Rs. 9. 000. 00 to Uma Nath Sharma for depositing the samein the office of that company at Mori Gate. He (Dalip Kumar) also gavefive cheques issued in the name of B. S. Jain Enterprises and GL Internationals,aggregating to Rs. 1. 418. 00 for depositing the same with the bank. On thatday, Som Nath (PW 4) who was working as an unloading clerk in the companyprepared astatement in respect of unloading of five trucks and gave the sameto Uma Nath Sharma, Raghbir Singh (PW 5) who was in charge of deliveryoffice of the company prepared a voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a of. conveyance andgave the same to Uma Nath Sharma for obtaining signatures of the ownerwith respect to the same. The net result was that Uma Nath had a cash ofrs. 11,500. 00,five cheques, on voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a and another voucherex. Public Witness 5/a of. conveyance andgave the same to Uma Nath Sharma for obtaining signatures of the ownerwith respect to the same. The net result was that Uma Nath had a cash ofrs. 11,500. 00,five cheques, on voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a and another voucherex. Public Witness 4/a. With the aforesaid cash and articles contained in a brown bagex. P1 ,he started at about 1. 45 p. m. from his office. When he was nearkothi No. 4. Boulevard Road, Delhi, the four accused met him. Hari Singhand the appellant Radha Raman were on a bicycle while Balwant Singhappellant and Hukam Chand were on foot. Hukam Chand was carrying aknife and be placed the same on the chest of Uma Nath Sharma. The personswith the bicycle snetched the bag and went away towards Tis Hazari Courts. Uma Nath Sharma could not raise any alarm because on the point of knife,he was prohibited to do so by Hukam Chand. Balwant Singh appellant rantowards St. Stephen Hospital which was nearby. Uma Nath Sharma chased. and was able to catch hold of Balwant Singh. Uma Nath Sharma broughtbalwant Singh to police post Tis Hazari from where both were taken to Policestation Civil Lines where Uma Nath signed a report recorded in the dailydiary. As the place of occurrence happened to be within the jurisdiction of Police Station Subzimandi, both Balwant Singh and Uma Nath Sharma werebrought to that police station. ( 3 ) THE investigation was taken over by SI Ved Prakash Kohli (PW 12 ). During interrogation, Balwant Singh disclosed the names of his accomplices. On 24/12/1981 along with Som Nath (PW 2) and Ram Prakash (PW 8) he (PW 12) went to Rain Basera at Old Rohtak Road. Radha Ramanappellant, Hukam Chand and Hari Singh were coming from the side ofkishan Ganj and they were arrested at about 7. 50 p. m. On search of Hukamchand, a knife was recovered. On search of the person of Radha Ramanappellant, a country made revolver was recovered. On search of the personof Hari Singh one country made revolver with five cartridges were recovered. ( 4 ) RADHA Raman appellant made a disclosure statement to the effectthat he could get Rs. 3,700. 00 recovered from his house. After that he led thepolice party and the witnesses (PW 2) and (PW 8) to his house and gotrecovered Rs. 3,700. 00 wrapped in a voucher Ex. ( 4 ) RADHA Raman appellant made a disclosure statement to the effectthat he could get Rs. 3,700. 00 recovered from his house. After that he led thepolice party and the witnesses (PW 2) and (PW 8) to his house and gotrecovered Rs. 3,700. 00 wrapped in a voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a of the company. Thesaid cash and the voucher were then lying behind a photograph ofhanumanji. ( 5 ) ON the same day, Hukam Chand accused made a disclosure statementthat he could get Rs. 1. 700. 00 recovered from the house of Satyapal at L-2/45,shastri Nagar. He then led the police party and the aforesaid witnesses tothe house of Satyapal from where a sum of Rs. 1,780. 00 and a slip written inthe hand of Som Nath (PW 4) wrapped in a handkerchief were recovered. ( 6 ) ON the same day, Hari Singh also made a disclosure statement thathe could get Rs. 4. 900. 00 recovered from his house No. 1-19, Karampura, Newdelhi. In pursuance of that disclosure statement, he led the police partyincluding witnesses to his house from where a hand bag containing Rs. 4,890. 00was recovered. That hand bag was lying in a tin box. ( 7 ) ON 6/01/1982, Hari Singh and Radha Raman were producedwith muffled faces before Shri R. K. Yadav, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhifor holding identification parade. Shri Yadav fixed 14/01/1982 as thedate for holding such a parade. On that date, in the Central Jail both Harisingh and Radha Raman refused to take part in the said parade in spite ofthe fact that they were warned that their refusal to take part in the identification parade could be used adversely against them during the trial. ( 8 ) AN application was filed by the police before Shri R. K. Yadavmetropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for holding identification parade for therexine bag. Ex. Pi. On 11/01/1982, SI Ved Parkash produced threebags so that the bag Ex. P 1 could be mixed up with them and Uma Nathmay be called upon to identify his bag Ex. P 1. As those bags were notfound to be similar, they were returned and the proceedings were adjournedto 29/01/1982 on which date Uma Nath was able to identify his bagex. PI out of a number of similar bags. ( 9 ) THE case of the present appellants and their remaining co-accusedwas one of total denial. P 1. As those bags were notfound to be similar, they were returned and the proceedings were adjournedto 29/01/1982 on which date Uma Nath was able to identify his bagex. PI out of a number of similar bags. ( 9 ) THE case of the present appellants and their remaining co-accusedwas one of total denial. Every one of them stated that he had been falselyimplicated. Radha Raman admitted that he was asked to join the identificationparade but that he refused because his photographs were taken and had beenshown to the eye witness and that be was also shown to the said eyewitness. ( 10 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge held that as no identificationparade was held as far as Hukam Chand was concerned, his identification inthe court by the eye witness Uma Nath Sharma was of no value. Accordingly,hukam Chand was acquitted. ( 11 ) AS far as Hari Singb is concerned, the learned Additional Sessionsjudge remarked that in the first information report Uma Nath bad given thenumber of robbers as three, that in a supplementary statement recorded shortlythereafter he had given the number as four, that none of the features of thethree robbers mentioned in the first information report tallied with those ofhari Singb who had a distinctive identification mark of small pox on his faceand that, therefore, it was doubtful if hewas a participant in the robbery. Hewas, therefore, acquitted of the charge of robbery punishable under section392 IPC, but as stolen property was recovered from him, he was convicted ofan offence punishable under section 411 IPC. ( 12 ) AS already mentioned, the prosecution evidence as against thepresent appellants was believed and on that basis, both of them were convictedand sentenced. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main attackof Bawa Gurcharan Singh, counsel for the appellants, was that no adversepresumption should be taken against Radha Raman for having not participatedin the identification parade. He urged that Radha Raman bad good reasonsand explanation for his refusal. Radha Raman in reply to question no. 16 inhis statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stated as under : "ans. It is correct. I refused to Join identification, as the policetook me from my house on 20-12-1981 and also took my photographs from my house which were shown to the witnesses and Iwas also shown to witnesses in the police station. 16 inhis statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stated as under : "ans. It is correct. I refused to Join identification, as the policetook me from my house on 20-12-1981 and also took my photographs from my house which were shown to the witnesses and Iwas also shown to witnesses in the police station. " ( 14 ) THE learned counsel submitted that in the present case the circumstances were such which supported the possibility that Radha Raman wasshown to the witnesses. His argument was to the following effect. Accordingto the version of the prosecution Radha Raman was arrested on 2 4/12/1981. The first thing the prosecution should have done was tokeep his face muffled and produce on the very next day before a magistratewith an application for holding identification parade. That was not done. It was for the first time of 6/01/1982 that an application was filedbefore a magistrate for fixing a date for holding identification parade on which 14/01/1982 was fixed for holding such a parade. Uma Nath Sharmacould have seen him in custody for many days from 25/12/1981 to 6/01/1982. That was especially so when there is no mention in anydocument that the face of Radba Raman was kept muffled The first documentin which there could be such a mention was Ex. Public Witness 12/da filed before amagistrate for grant of judicial remand. It was on the basis of this applicationthat Radha Raman was remanded to judicial custody upto 4/01/1982. There is no mention in the said application that his face was muffled. Thereis also mention in any entry of daily diary that the face of Radha Raman waskept muffled after his arrest. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel relied upon some authorities. In Prittam Singhand another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 Rajasthan 184, the followingobservations were made in paragraph 3 at page 185 : "the occurrence took place on 25/08/1967 : the identificationproceedings were conducted on 29/12/1967, that is aftermore than four months. Test identification held long after theevent is of little value. The value of identification depends on twomost important factors, viz,, that the person who identifies anaccused had bad no opportunity of seeing him after the commissionof the crime ; and secondly that no mistake had been made by thewitnesses. No importance can be attached to identification if thetest identification is conducted long after the arrest of accused. The value of identification depends on twomost important factors, viz,, that the person who identifies anaccused had bad no opportunity of seeing him after the commissionof the crime ; and secondly that no mistake had been made by thewitnesses. No importance can be attached to identification if thetest identification is conducted long after the arrest of accused. There is every possibility of committing mistake by a witness if theidentification proceedings are held after an inordinate delay. Again,in the present case the accused were put in the identification paradeii days after their arrest. No convincing explanation is forthcomingas to why so much time was allowed to pass between the arrest ofthe accused and the identification proceedings. " ( 16 ) IN Hasib v. The State of Bihar, Alr 1972 Supreme Court 283, itwas inter alia held that the purpose of test identification parade was to testcorrectness of substantive evidence of a witness regarding identification of anaccused and that the substantive evidence consisted of statements of thewitnesses in a court. ( 17 ) IN State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Saruna Munni Dhimar and others,air 1954 VP 42, following was held : "no presumption attaches to identification proceedings conductedby Magistrates and it is for the prosecution to prove affirmativelythat every possible precaution was taken to ensure fair identificationand the proceedings were not only fairly conducted but werecorrectly recorded. It is necessary that the accused persons whom it may benecessary to put up for identification, should be warned at the timeof their arrest that it may be necessary to put them up for identification and that they should keep their faces covered and to takethem to the police station in that state. In the police station thelock-up in which they are kept should be covered with parda sothat no one is able to see their faces. When they are taken to courtor to jail their faces should be kept covered. In jail also no outsidershould be allowed to see their faces. All these precautions shouldnot only be taken but should be proved to have been taken. Thatthese precautions were taken should be recorded in official recordslike the general diary of the police station and the jail register andthey should be produced in court. In the absence of such evidence,no value can be attached to the identification of an accused personmade by a witness. Thatthese precautions were taken should be recorded in official recordslike the general diary of the police station and the jail register andthey should be produced in court. In the absence of such evidence,no value can be attached to the identification of an accused personmade by a witness. " ( 18 ) THERE is no doubt that in the present case it was not mentioned inany of the documents prepared before 6/01/1982 that face of Radhararoan was kept covered. It is also true that police did not make anyapplication before 6/01/1982 to any magistrate for holding identificationparade. However, in my opinion, the aforesaid does, not in any way, helpthe appellant Radha Raman. ( 19 ) BOTH SI Ved Prakash Kohli (PW 12) and Ranbir Singh (PW 10)stated on oath that the accused muffled their faces after the arrest. It wasfurther stated by Public Witness 12 that on 25/12/1981 all the three accused (other than Balwant Singh) were produced betore the Metropolitan Magistrateconcerned with muffled faces and that judicial remand was then taken. Incross-examination, Public Witness 12 added as follows ; "these 3accd. were sent or medical examination at about noontime on 25-2-1981 along with ASI Mool Chand. I did not make amention in the recovery memos regarding the accd. being in muffledfaces. These accd. persons who were kept muffled faces were notallowed to unmuffle their faces that night. "there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses because it has neither beenalleged nor shown that they had any enmity with Radha Raman or any of hisco-accused. ( 20 ) IT is pertinent to mention that there was also recovery of Rs. 3. 700. 00wrapped in voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a of M/s. Green Carriers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of disclosure statement of Radba Raman appellant, it wasstated by Public Witness 10 and Public Witness 12 that Radha Raman made a disclosure statementex. Public Witness 10/b and that after led the police party to his house end that he gotrecovered Rs. 3. 700. 00 wrapped in voucher Ex. Public Witness 5/a lying bebind thephotograph of Hanumanji. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness 10/b Som Nath (PW 2) and Ram Prakash (PW 8) signed the said statement. Those witnesseswere examined by the prosecution with the object of proving the making ofdisclosure statement and that recovery in pursuance of the same. Public Witness 5/a lying bebind thephotograph of Hanumanji. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness 10/b Som Nath (PW 2) and Ram Prakash (PW 8) signed the said statement. Those witnesseswere examined by the prosecution with the object of proving the making ofdisclosure statement and that recovery in pursuance of the same. But thosewitnesses did not support the prosecution and the Additional Publicprosecutor was allowed to put such questions as can be asked in crossexamination. The trial court rightly held that they were won over. ( 22 ) THE net result is that not only there was identification of Radharaman in court as one of the robbers and that Radha Kaman had refusedto join the identification parade, but also there was recovery of stolenproperty or the disclosure statement and pointing out of Radha Raman whichlends assurance to the correctness of evidence of identification. ( 23 ) THE authorities as cited by the counsel for the appellant do not help. With due respect. I differ with the view of V. P. HighCourt. According toview of that High Court, very thing done with respect to covering of faces bythe accused, who are likely to participate in identification parade, should bereduced into writing in official records and without such writing, oral evidencewith not be of much value. But that is a mechanical way of appreciation of evidence. All investigating officers are not so cautious and meticulous so asas to reduce everything ; done by them in respect of covering of faces of theaccused, into writing. There will no more omissions than not thereby leavingcourts with no option except to mechanically reject even otherwise reliableoral evidence. No doubt it is desirable that such writings are made by investigating officers. But if such writing does not exist, the value of the oralevidence has to be judged on its own merits and we should not havemechanical rule of rejection of oral evidence for want of the aforesaidwriting. ( 24 ) THE judgment of the Rajasthan High Court does not apply in thepresent case. I appears that in that case emphasis was that there should notbs a long gap between the occurrence and conducting of test identification. Further in that particular cases, delay was also caused in holding such anidentification parade after the arrest of the accused. ( 24 ) THE judgment of the Rajasthan High Court does not apply in thepresent case. I appears that in that case emphasis was that there should notbs a long gap between the occurrence and conducting of test identification. Further in that particular cases, delay was also caused in holding such anidentification parade after the arrest of the accused. Therefore, it was thecumulative effect of two delays which was taken into account and the testidentification parade was found to be of little value. The facts are differentin the present case. in this case there was some delay in holding the identification parade after the arrest of the accused but there was not a long gap oftime between the date of the occurrence and the holding of the identificationparade because the occurrence took place on 19/12/1981 while theidentification parade wan scheduled to be held on 14/01/1982, on whichdate appellant Radha Raman signified his refusal to join such a parade. Therefore, the gap between the occurrence and 14/01/1982 was only of26 days whereas such a gap in the case before Rajasthan High Court wasmore than four months. ( 25 ) THE Supreme Court authority is in respect of well accepted principleof late that in order that substantive evidence of identification of an accused (who was unknown to the witnesses previously) is accepted, it must becorroborated by his identification of that very accused in an identificationparade. That judgment is not relevant in respect of the precautions to betaken before identification parade is held. While in this case, the matterinvolved is as to the precautions to be taken and what type of evidence isnecessary to prove the factum of taking of those precautions. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that no questionregarding covering of his face was asked from Radha Raman when his statement was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. . that that failure disentitled thecourt to use the evidence regarding covering of his face against him and thatbeing so, it should be held that there was no muffling of his face andconsequently his refusal to join the identification parade was justified. P. C. . that that failure disentitled thecourt to use the evidence regarding covering of his face against him and thatbeing so, it should be held that there was no muffling of his face andconsequently his refusal to join the identification parade was justified. ( 27 ) BUT the aforesaid argument proceeds on a wrong interpretation ofsection 313 Criminal Procedure Code That section says that in every enquiry or trial for thepurpose of enabling an accused to explain any circumstances appearing inevidence against him, the court shall after the witnesses for the prosecutionhave been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question himgenerally on the case. It is obvious that the question which are to be askedfrom an accused are in respect of incriminating circumstances i. e. the circumstances which can be used against him for basing a conviction. The circumstance of of covering of his face by itself is not incriminating against anaccused. The evidence regarding covering efface by itself does not justifyany inference of the accused having committed an offence. The circumstanceof covering of the face is merely an aid in the matter of appreciation of theprosecution evidence. This circumstance can negative an explanation forrefusal to join the identification parade on the ground that an accused wasperhaps seen by witnesses before such parade. Under these circumstances itwas not necessary to ask any question regarding covering of his face fromradha Raman appellant. ( 28 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants assailed the credibility ofthe evidence relating to recovery of money from Radha Raman on the basisthat very evidence was not believed as far as alleged recovery from Hukamchand accused was concerned. The learned counsel in this respect reliedupon the following remarks of the learned trial Sessions Judge in paragraph34 of the judgment : "so far as Hukam Chand accused is concerned, to link the currencynotes the prosecution uses Ex. Public Witness 4/a a slip purported to havebeen given by Som Nath Public Witness 4 to Uma Nath Public Witness 6. The statementof Som Nath regarding the slip is that he had given the same touma Nath for delivery at the head office. In cross-examinationthe witness took a somersault and added the Ex. Public Witness 4/a is theoriginal and it was handed over by him to the police. This castsa shadow of doubt regarding the recovery that has been affectedfrom Hukam Chand accused. In cross-examinationthe witness took a somersault and added the Ex. Public Witness 4/a is theoriginal and it was handed over by him to the police. This castsa shadow of doubt regarding the recovery that has been affectedfrom Hukam Chand accused. This was the link with the currencynotes. But if the slip Ex. Public Witness 4/a was given by Som Nath to thepolice after the occurrence, then it could not have been taken fromuma Nath who is purported to have been robbed. " ( 29 ) THE learned counsel emphasized that when the same very evidencewas not reliable as far as recovery from Hukam Chand was concerned, howthe same suddenly because worthy of reliance as against Radha Raman. ( 30 ) I do not agree with the learned counsel. Evidence regardingrecovery from Hukam Chand was not believed because statement on cross-examination of Public Witness 4 to the effect that he gave Ex. Public Witness 4/a to police wasbelieved by trial court and it was remarked by that court that when Ex. Public Witness 4/awas given to police how it could be taken away from Uma Nath (PW 6) inrobbery and thereafter recovered from Hukam Chand. In my opinion it waswrong on the part of trial court to have believed that statement of Public Witness 4 oncross-examination for the obvious reason that that statement was inconsistentand contradictory to his statement in examination-in-chief to the effect thathe gave that slip Ex. Public Witness 4/a to Uma Nath (PW 6 ). There was hardly anyground for trial court to have attached credibility to statement on crossexamination of that witness as against his contrary statement in examinationin-chief. It appears that Public Witness 4 was under some confusion when he madeaforesaid statement in cross-examination. That confusion could be onaccount of some error or fading of memory due to long lapse of time. Theoccurrence took place on 19/12/1981 while Public Witness 4 was examined incourt on10/05/1984. Thus Public Witness 4 was examined after about 21 years ofthe occurrence. Due to that lapse of time, some error or fading of memorycrept in which led to a confusion in the mind of Public Witness 4 resulting in making incross-examination a statement contradictory to the one made in examination-in-chief. I am of the view that the evidence regarding recoveries (consistingof statements of Public Witness 10 and Public Witness 12) is worthy of reliance. I am of the view that the evidence regarding recoveries (consistingof statements of Public Witness 10 and Public Witness 12) is worthy of reliance. Not only that thesaid evidence was rightly believed, when the trial court held that robbedmoney was recoved from Radha Raman but that the said evidence shouldhave been believeed and the trial court should have held that the recoverywas from Hukam Chand accused also. ( 31 ) NOW I take up the case of Balwant Singh. He was apprehendedat the spot. His plea in this respect reads as under : "q. 7. It is in evidence that Uma Nath gave chase to you andhukam Chand. You ran towards St Stephen Hospital anduma Nath caught hold of you at the corner of the hospitalwhere it meets the main road on other side and brought youto P. P. Tis Hazari. Ans. It is correct. I had gone to St. Stephen Hospital for takingmedicine when I was apprehended mistakingly. I do notknow the other accused persons at all, nor I was with them. " ( 32 ) THE learned counsel for the said appellant contended that neitheranything incriminating nor any potion of the robbed cash was recoveredfrom Balwant Singh, that it has not been shown in the evidence that be had anyconnection with the other accused and that hence, therefore, his plea deservesacceptance. ( 33 ) THE plea taken up by the appellant is not convincing at all. Therecould not be any mistaken apprehension of Balwant Singh. The occurrencetook place with Uma Nath and it could not be said that he was under somemistake of the identity of the robbers involved and caught hold of a wrongperson. Statement of Uma Nath (PW 6) on cross-examination reads asunder: "it is incorrect that I had caught hold of accd. Balwant Singh bymistake when he had allegedly come out of Stephen Hospital aftertaking a medicine. " ( 34 ) THE fact that there was no recovery from Balwant Singh does nothelp him. According to the version of the prosecution he did not relain thebag containing money. The bag was taken by his accomplices. He wasapprehended immediately and therefore he did not have even time to get shareof booty from his accomplices. " ( 34 ) THE fact that there was no recovery from Balwant Singh does nothelp him. According to the version of the prosecution he did not relain thebag containing money. The bag was taken by his accomplices. He wasapprehended immediately and therefore he did not have even time to get shareof booty from his accomplices. ( 35 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact thevery version of the prosecution is wrong and should be disbelieved on accountof the following discrepancies : " (A) At the time of lodging the first information report, Uma Nathgave the number of the robbers as three while in the court hiscase was that the robbers were four four in number. Thatinconsistency knocked the very bottom of the case of theprosecution. (b) Colour of bag Ex. P 1 actually is brown, but Uma Nath gavethat colour as red infirst infoimation report and inexamination-in-chief and brown in cross-examination. " ( 36 ) BUT that argument has no force. A few minutes after the recordingof the first information report, Uma Nath brought to the notice of the policeby a supplementary statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that the number ofrobbers was four. Uma Nath has explained in cross-examination that hebecame very nervous and that therefore at the time of recording of the firstinformation report be gave number of the robbers as three. That explanationis very sound. It is a matter of common knowledge that when one is suspectedto such neive shaking occurrence of robbery in which one of the robbers heldan open knife, he was bound to be nervous. ( 37 ) THE discrepancy regarding description of colour of bag is merelyminor error. Such error is committed by many and they confuse between redand brown colours. ( 38 ) I find that the appellants have been rightly convicted for commissionof the offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 IPC. However, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that this was not acase of awarding maximum punishment. There is no doubt that the robberywas of very serious nature because it was committed in open day light on aroad which indicates that the appellants and their accomplices were daredevils, deserving deterrent punishment, yet I am of the opinion that ends ofjustice would be served if punishment is reduced to regorous imprisonment forseven years. There is no doubt that the robberywas of very serious nature because it was committed in open day light on aroad which indicates that the appellants and their accomplices were daredevils, deserving deterrent punishment, yet I am of the opinion that ends ofjustice would be served if punishment is reduced to regorous imprisonment forseven years. ( 39 ) I, therefore, dismiss the appeal against conviction but reduce thesentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to seven yearsrigorous imprisonment beside sentence of fine already awarded. Jail authoritiesbe intimated in respect of reduction of sentence.