ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the TADA Act. The appellant is convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He along with one Jhabra (A-2) was tried for offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 394 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the TADA Act. The Designated Court acquitted A-2 and convicted the appellant as stated above. 2. It is alleged that on September 6, 1988, PW 2, Tejpal who was employed as a godown-keeper with M/s Yamuna Nagar Gas Service was on duty. PWs 3 and 4, who were workers, were also present and their duty was to supply cylinders of gas at the houses of the consumers. PWs 3 and 4 had to deposit the cash collected from the various consumers. At about 6.30 p.m. on that day PW 2 had a total cash collection of Rs 6744 with him. While he was counting the cash sitting inside the room it is alleged that the two accused persons entered the room. The appellant, Malkhan Singh who was known to PW 2 earlier, was armed with a knife. He was also earlier employed in another gas company. It is further alleged that both the accused after entering the room closed the door from inside and the appellant inflicted a knife-blow to him, while A-2 who was armed with a pistol, snatched the bag containing the amount. After snatching the bag A-2 aimed the pistol and in that incident PW 3 also received a knife-blow at the hands of the appellant. Thereafter both the accused locked the door and ran away. PWs 2 and 3 managed to open the door and came out. PW 3 went to the nearby ESI Hospital and telephoned to the owner of Yamuna Nagar Gas Service and a case was registered. The investigation proceeded and it is alleged that on September 11, 1988 while PWs 2 and 4 were going towards the bypass Yamuna Nagar the Sub-Inspector got down from the bus and saw A-1 and A-2. PW 2 pointed out to the SHO that these are the persons who had committed the robbery. The investigation proceeded and it is alleged that on September 11, 1988 while PWs 2 and 4 were going towards the bypass Yamuna Nagar the Sub-Inspector got down from the bus and saw A-1 and A-2. PW 2 pointed out to the SHO that these are the persons who had committed the robbery. They were accordingly arrested and taken to the Police Station and on an interrogation the appellant made a disclosure statement pursuant to which a bag containing the knife and the cash of Rs 6744 was recovered. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant, in particular, pleaded that the appellant visited his house and took away the cash of Rs 8000 which was brought by his brother from the Bank. The trial Court disbelieved the disclosure statement and recovery of the cash and the knife from the appellant. The Designated Court, however, relied on the evidence of these witnesses to the extent that the appellant was in company of another person while committing the robbery and during the same transaction he inflicted injuries on PWs 2 and 3 and, therefore, he was liable for an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. In this appeal the learned counsel submits that once recovery part of it is rejected then there is no material to show that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and at any rate Section 34 cannot be invoked inasmuch as the other accused charged along with the appellant under Section 392 read with Section 34 is acquitted. His further submission is that PW 2 the main witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution thereby treating him as hostile and the prosecution is left only with the evidence of PW 3 on the basis of which alone the conviction cannot be sustained. 4. We have perused the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 the main witnesses and the reasons given by the learned Designated Judge. The learned Designated Judge rejected the recovery of the bag containing the knife and cash which is alleged to have been effected pursuant to the statement made by the appellant to the police. The trial Court has given good reasons to disagree with the same. The learned Designated Judge rejected the recovery of the bag containing the knife and cash which is alleged to have been effected pursuant to the statement made by the appellant to the police. The trial Court has given good reasons to disagree with the same. Then the question is whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. For application of Section 392 Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to establish that there is a robbery and during the commission of the same the offender must have caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint. The difficulty in this case is that the robbery part of it is not accepted by the trial Court. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is to the effect that it is the other accused A-2 who snatched away the bag from PW 2. The prosecution, no doubt, relied on the recovery part of it at the instance of the appellant but that has been rejected by the trial Court. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that the ingredients of Section 392 read with Section 390 (sic 34) Indian Penal Code are made out so far as the appellants are concerned, in view of the fact that A-2 who actually snatched away the bag, is acquitted. 5. However, we are satisfied that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant caused hurt to PWs 2 and 3 with the knife. This is also supported by the medical evidence in which case the offence committed by the appellant would be one punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code simpliciter. For all the above reasons the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment thereunder are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.