H. C. MITTAL, J, J. ( 1 ) SALEEM has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence to five years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, six months R. I. under Section 394, I. P. C. passed on 31. 7. 1978 by Sri B. P. Mehrotra, the then Addi. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that P. W. 1 Govind Das was Muneemt and Sri Kundan Lal was owner of Sahgal Rice Mill situated near Station Road, Mainpuri at a distance of one furlong from the Police Station, Kotwali. They were sitting on their Gadtli on 7. 6. 1978 at about 4. 45 P. M. along with P. W. 2 Sri Satyapal and Nathu Ram. Inside the Mill Pallcdars (lifters) Sarwan, Ramesh (P. W. 3) Bharat and others were working. This appellant Saleem along with Golab Jam, Shyam Vir and two other unknown persons entered that room wherein on the Gaddi the propritors were sitting. Saleem was armed with a Danda, Gulab Chandra Jam and Shyam Vir were armed with pistols. Two miscreants remained outside. These three persons closed the room inside and brandishing their pistols and Dunda threatened the persons sitting there to deliver all the cash which they had and forbade them from raising any alarm otherwise they would be killed. P. W. 2 Satyapal handed over Rs. 596/- and Nathu Ram Rs. 111/- from their pockets. When Govind Das and Kundan Lal did not give anything, they were attacked with his Danda by the appellant Saleem and then their search was taken. From the pocket of the coat of Govind Das Rs. 327/- were taken out while nothing was found from the person of Kundan Lal. Thereafter three of them after opening the door started running away, an alarm was raised whereupon the Palledars, namely, Sarwan, P. W. 3 Ramesh, Bharat and others arrived, surrounded the three persons and succeeded in apprehending them, after causing them injuries, while their two companions standing outside made good their escape. All the three persons including the present appellant were taken to the police station where written F. I. R. (Ex. Ka-5) was submitted by P. W. 1 Govind Das, on the basis of which case was registered. A revolver loaded with seven cartridges and Rs. 596/- in cash were recovered from the pocket of Gulab Chandra Jam. All the three persons including the present appellant were taken to the police station where written F. I. R. (Ex. Ka-5) was submitted by P. W. 1 Govind Das, on the basis of which case was registered. A revolver loaded with seven cartridges and Rs. 596/- in cash were recovered from the pocket of Gulab Chandra Jam. From the possession of Shyam Vir a revolver loaded with four cartridges and Rs. 111/- were recovered. From the possession of Saleem besides a Danda, Rs. 327/- were recovered which were looted by them at the scene of occurrence. After registration of the case, the injured were sent for Medical Examination. ( 3 ) ON the person of Kundan Lalone lacerated wound and one abraded contusion, on the person of Govind Das one multiple contustion in an area of 6 cm x 2 cm on the top of right shoulder and two other contusions; one on the right finger and the other on the left side of middle finger were noted. On the person of accused Shyam Vir two lacerated wounds and one contusion, on the person of Gulab Chandra three abrasions, one lacerated wound and on the person of this appellant Saleem one abrasion and three contusions were noted. Injuries of all were examined on the same day at the District Hospital, Mainpuri from 6. 15 P. m. to 8. 45 P. M. All the three named accused were tried under Section 395 read with Sections 397,412, I. P. C. and 25, Arms Act, but they were convicted only under Section 394, I. P. C. and sentenced to five years R. I. and Rs. 500/- each as the prosecution could not prove from whose possession which of the fire-arm was recovered. On being aggrieved Gulab Chandra Jam and Shyam Vir preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 1978, while this appellant Saleem preferred separate Criminal Appeal No. 2239 of 1978. Appeal of Shyam Vir and Gulab Chandra Jam has abated due to their death. ( 4 ) ON behalf of this appellant Saleem it was urged that the prosecution evidence on record was not worthy of reliance to bring home guilt to him and in the alternative it was also urged that the sentence awarded was too severe. ( 5 ) AS stated above, the facts of the case are very simple. ( 4 ) ON behalf of this appellant Saleem it was urged that the prosecution evidence on record was not worthy of reliance to bring home guilt to him and in the alternative it was also urged that the sentence awarded was too severe. ( 5 ) AS stated above, the facts of the case are very simple. All the three miscreants were not only apprehended on the spot, but all the three of them as well as P. W. 1 Govind Das and P. W. Kundan Lal had received injuries at the time of the incident which were examined by Doctor. They were examined by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Mainpuri and the injury reports are Exs. Ka-11 to Ka-15, the genuineness of which was not disputed. At the time of the trial the Doctor was not examined. P. W. 1 Govind Das who was Muneem at the Sahgal Rice Mill who had submitted the written report (Ex. Ka-5) deposed that in the evening on 7. 1. 1978 at about 4. 45 P. M. the proprietor Kundan Lal as well as Satyapal (P. W. 2) and Nathu Ram were sitting on the Gaddi of the Mill when these three miscreants including this present appellant Saleem armed with Danda and the other two armed with pistols entered the room, closed it and then threatened them with their pistols and Danda and demanded whatever cash they had, whereupon Satyapal and Nathu Ram had taken out Rs. 596/- and Rs. 111/ - from their respective pockets and handed over the same to the miscreants; that when he himself and Kundanlal did not part with the money they were beaten with Dandas and on his search Rs. 327/- were taken out from the pocket of the coat of Govind Das, while nothing was found from the person of Kundan Lal; that when they started running to escape, alarm was raised, whereupon Palledars Ramesh, Bharat, Sarwan and others who were working there arrived and with their help all these three miscreants were caught, while two of their companions who were standing outside managed to escape. There is nothing in his cross- examination to dispute the fact that he was the Muneem of the Sahgal Rice Mill and Kundal Lal was its proprietor and at that time Satya Pal and Nathu Ram were also sitting and this incident had taken place. There is nothing in his cross- examination to dispute the fact that he was the Muneem of the Sahgal Rice Mill and Kundal Lal was its proprietor and at that time Satya Pal and Nathu Ram were also sitting and this incident had taken place. P. W. 2 Satyapal who is a partner in the Firm and was also robbed of Rs. 596/- has also fully corroborated the version given by P. W. 1 Govind Das. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out anything in the cross-examination of this witness also whereby whose presence at the scene of occurrence could be doubted. ( 6 ) LASTLY, P. W. 3 Ramesh who was one of the Palledars in the Rice Mill has also fully corroborated the prosecution case and there is nothing in his cross-examination that he was also not a Palledar at that Mill. The oral testimony of the witnesses finds full corroboration with the injuries found on the person of the miscreants including this appellant Saleem as well as Govind Das and Kundan Lal. The miscreants had received injuries when they were apprehended as stated by the witnesses moreover, no reason has been assigned for false implication of this appellant. ( 7 ) THE version of this appellant, however, has been that he was released from Jail on 6. 1. 1978 and that on the date of incident he was apprehended from his house by the Darogha along with 4-5 constables and they had also taken from his house Rs. 327/ -. No such suggestion as stated by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 323 Cr. P. C. was given to P. W. 4 S. I. Mahavir Prasad Sharma who had done the investigation, nor any evidence in defence has been given to show that there was any truth in the defence version. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent person was examined and therefore, the testimony of the three eye-witnesses could not be believed, prima facie, is without any force as presence of any other independent witness at the time of the incident has not been made out in the testimony of the witnesses. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent person was examined and therefore, the testimony of the three eye-witnesses could not be believed, prima facie, is without any force as presence of any other independent witness at the time of the incident has not been made out in the testimony of the witnesses. Only four persons were inside the room, namely P. W. 1 Govind Das, P. W. 2 Satyapal, Kundan Lal and Nathu Ram and all of them were the victims of the occurrence and two of them has been examined. It could not be said that the other two were independent witnesses and should have been examined. ( 9 ) AFTER a close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence on record it could not be doubted that the prosecution has brought home guilt to the appellant without any doubt and, therefore, the conviction under Section 394, I. P. C. should be maintained. As regards the sentence it was pointed out that the appellant had given his age as 20 years on 13. 7. 1978. The occurrence had taken place on 7. 1. 1978. Thus, on the date of occurrence also he was more than 19 years and, therefore, is not entitled to any benefit. It was also urged that the appeal is being heard after about twelve and a half years and, therefore, the sentence should be reduced. Something should have been shown like the antecedent of the appellant had been clean. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. he has himself stated that on 6. 1. 1978 he came out from prison on bail, but on the following day he was again apprehended at about 4:30 P. M. and the police had taken along with him Rs. 327/-; that he was falsely implicated; that the police earlier also suspected him in a dacoity case and in a theft case, but he was not identified, That shows that the appellant has not been a person of good antecedent and is not entitled to any leniency when the trial court itself awarded only five years R. I. for the offence under Section 394, LP. C. which is indeed a very serious offence and the manner in which the occurrence in question was committed. ( 10 ) THE conclusion, therefore, is that the appeal has no force. It is dismissed. C. which is indeed a very serious offence and the manner in which the occurrence in question was committed. ( 10 ) THE conclusion, therefore, is that the appeal has no force. It is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant Saleem under Section 394, I. P. C. to five years rigorous imprisonment are confirmed. He shall surrender to serve out his sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled. ( 11 ) A copy of the judgment be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for taking necessary action to get the appellant apprehended. Appeal dismissed. .