G. C. GUPTA J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed under section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. is directed against conviction and sentence of the appellant by Shri R. P. Verma, 1st Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 114 of 1984 decided on 17th May, 1985 convicting them for offences under section 393 read with section 398 I. P C. and sentencing them to seven yearst R. I. each. The appellant No. 1 has also been found guilty under section 25 (1)-A of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R. I. Similarly, appellant No. 2 Kanhaiya das has been held guilty under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R. I. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case against the appellants is that on 24-5-1984, complainant Jagan Kurmi (P. W. 1) was going to village Sakeri and had reached Devarhat Khar, when the two appellants stopped him. The appellants were armed with deshi kana and knife and pointed these weapons at Jagan and thereby required him to hand-over everything that he had in his possession. The appellants are also alleged to have searched Jagan and found no cash. Jagan was, however, wearing a silver kardhan on his waist, which the two appellants tried to take out. Jagan resisted and shouted for help. Brahmanpuri Goswami, Banafar Sahu, Kedar Kewar, Dilip Sahu and several others, who were working nearby, came to his rescue. Seeing so many persons coming to help Jagan the appellants are said to have run away. They were, however, chased and apprehended and taken to Police Station along with one deshi katta, two live cartridges and a knife. After investigation they were put on trial for offences aforesaid. The learned trial Judge found that evidence of Jagan (P. W. 1) was fully supported by Jeevandas (P. W. 2) Brahmanpuri (P. W. 3) and Kotwar Anuj Das (P. W. 4 ). The learned Judge, therefore, found the appellants guilty of offences aforesaid and sentenced them accordingly. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants ware not known to the witnesses from before and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to hold an identification parade. Since the identification parade was not held, it could not be said with any amount of certainty that the appellants were the culprits. Since the identification parade was not held, it could not be said with any amount of certainty that the appellants were the culprits. It is also submitted that nothing whatsoever was seized from the possession of the appellants and, therefore, they could not be convicted and sentenced under sections 393/398 I. P. C. It is also complained that no ballistic expert was examined to prove that the seized deshi katta was in running condition so as to convict them for offences under section 25 of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence, however, are supported by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the appellants were not known to the witnesses from before. Normally, in a case where the identity of culprits is required to be established an identification parade is, usually held. Holding of test identification parade is, however, not essential in every case. In a case where the accused is known from before to the witnesses, his identity is not doubted and, therefore, holding of test identification parade is not required. This logic applied in all those cases where identity of the accused person is not doubted. In the instant case, the appellants were apprehended on the spot and were taken to the Police Station where they were arrested along with the deshi katta and knife. In a situation like this, the identify of the two persons can never be doubted and, therefore, holding of test identification would be wholly unnecessary. The incident bad taken place at about 7. 00 a. m. The two appellants ran away when the witnesses reached the spot and were apprehended. After being apprehended, they were taken to the Police Station, where they were arrested. In such a case, there can be no doubt about the identity and, therefore, objection of the appellants based on identification parade cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) OBJECTION based on absence of seizure from any of the two appellants is also without any substance. The incident, as had taken place, indicates that the appellants had not succeeded in snatching the silver kardhan from Jagan. Jagan himself has stated that he had no money in his possession. Under the circumstances, it is not a case where the appellants had succeed in obtaining the property. They were unfortunately apprehended before they could succeed. The incident, as had taken place, indicates that the appellants had not succeeded in snatching the silver kardhan from Jagan. Jagan himself has stated that he had no money in his possession. Under the circumstances, it is not a case where the appellants had succeed in obtaining the property. They were unfortunately apprehended before they could succeed. That is the reason why they have been charged for attempt to commit robbery under sections 393 and 398 of the I. P. C. Nothing, therefore, turns on the absence of seizure of stolen property from their possession. ( 6 ) EVIDENCE of Jagan (P. W. 1) is that the two appellants were armed with a deshi katta and a knife and had stopped him on the way and demanded Rs. 5,000/ -. He has also stated that the appellants bad searched his person and found no money. He has further stated that when the appellants found no money, they tried to take out the silver kardhan, which he was wearing at that time. At this point of time, he shouted for help when several persons, who were working in nearby fields, came running. On seeing these persons coming to the spot, the appellants ran away, but were chased and apprehended. Thereafter, these two appellants were taken to Police Station. There is nothing hi the cross-examination of the witness to doubt the correctness of his statement. His evidence was, however, criticized on the ground that he could not see properly with one eye. A perusal of Para 6 of his deposition would indicate that he could very clearly see from one eye, but could not properly see from the other. The incident had taken place in broad day light and the two appellants apprehended on the spot. There was, therefore, no possibility of this witness not properly identifying the two appellants. His statement in the Court is fully supported by his version contained in F. I. R. Jeewandas (P. W. 2) and Brahmanpuri (P. W. 3) also support him fully. Under the circumstances, there is good and acceptable evidence to hold that the appellant had attempted robbery on Jagan. It must, therefore, be held that they were rightly convicted and sentenced. His statement in the Court is fully supported by his version contained in F. I. R. Jeewandas (P. W. 2) and Brahmanpuri (P. W. 3) also support him fully. Under the circumstances, there is good and acceptable evidence to hold that the appellant had attempted robbery on Jagan. It must, therefore, be held that they were rightly convicted and sentenced. ( 7 ) BESIDES Jagan (P. W. 1), Jeewandas (P. W. 3), Kotwar Anujdas (P. W. 4) also prove that when the two appellants were brought to Devarhat Bazar, appellant Shyambabu had a pistol in his hand and Kanhaiyadas a knife. He had also accompanied the appellants and the witnesses to the Police Station. He has proved seizure of pistol, live cartridges and the knife from these appellants. Budheshwar (P. W. 6), the Investigating Officer also proves seizure of deshi katta and a knife. According to him, catridges were live and deshi katta was in working condition. He has also given description of the knife, which according to him, was 6 long and 1 wide and sharp. Evidence of these witnesses leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the two appellants were armed with deadly weapons at the time when they attempted robbery. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under sections 393 and 398 I. P. C. is well deserved. Since section 393 I. P. C. provides for a maximum sentence of seven years and that minimum sentence alone has been imposed, there is no scope of interference with the aforesaid sentence. ( 9 ) APPEAL fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .