D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE accused has been convicted under section 394/397 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R. I. , being the minimum prescribed sentence under section 397 IPC. ( 2 ) IN brief, the prosecution case is that on 14/11/1984, at about 12 in the mid-night, at Meihar, the complainant, P. W. 1 Munnalal, who is a rickshaw puller, was robbed of the cash on his person by the two persons including the present appellant. As per the complainant's version before the Court, since the complainant refused to take the two accused in his rickshaw beyond a certain point agreed between them, the two accused persons caught hold of him and by putting a gun on his neck robbed the cash money on his person. The First Information Report was lodged on the third day of the incident i. e. on 16/11/1984, at 9. 13 in the night. Complainant P. W. 1 Munnalal explained the delay in lodging the report to the police by stating that it is only after he narrated the incident to his father and again happened to see the accused in market that he had rushed to the police station to lodge the report. ( 3 ) THE conviction of the appellant with a minimum sentence of 7 years mainly rests on the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Munnalal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused submits that in a separate criminal case u/s. 27 of the Indian Arms Act tried by Magistrate, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of arms seized from him after the alleged incident of robbery. The learned counsel for the accused therefore, argued that in this incident, the accused could not be convicted under section 397 IPC. According to the learned counsel, principles of issue estoppel would apply in the case for the benefit of the accused. Reliance is placed on Amritlal Rattilal Mehta v. State of Gujarat ( 4 ) THE next submission on behalf of the accused is that there are material improvements and omissions in the statements of the complainant P. W. 1 Munnalal before the Court as compared with his statement contained in the First Information Report lodged to the police. Reliance is placed on Amritlal Rattilal Mehta v. State of Gujarat ( 4 ) THE next submission on behalf of the accused is that there are material improvements and omissions in the statements of the complainant P. W. 1 Munnalal before the Court as compared with his statement contained in the First Information Report lodged to the police. ( 5 ) LASTLY it is submitted that in the absence of any identification of the accused persons, it is unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the complainant to uphold the conviction. ( 6 ) I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the State, who supported the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below. ( 7 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for parties, in my opinion, the statement of complainant P. W. 1 Munnalal to the extent of alleging use of a gun for committing the offence of robbery, is not believable. In the First Information report, the version of the incident is that when the complainant refused to carry the rickshaw after a certain point, one of the two accused persons took out pistol and in fear a handed them over the currency notes of Rs. 212/ -. ( 8 ) COMPARED to the above version, the statement of the complainant before the Court on a great extent is a distinct improvement over the earlier version given by him in the First Information Report. In the Court he has materially improved his version by stating that first the two accused beat him and appellant Jagat Singh caught hold of the neck of the complainant and took-out a gun, which was put on his neck while the other accused took out the currency notes from his pocket. It may also be noted that in the First Information Report, there is mention of use of pistol; whereas in the statement before the Court, it is said that a long gun was used. The material improvement in the version of the complainant falsified the story that in the commission of the crime of robbery, a deadly weapon was used. It may also be noted that in the First Information Report, there is mention of use of pistol; whereas in the statement before the Court, it is said that a long gun was used. The material improvement in the version of the complainant falsified the story that in the commission of the crime of robbery, a deadly weapon was used. In my considered opinion, therefore, there is no justification to convict the accused under section 397 IPC and for imposing a minimum prescribed sentence of 7 years R. I. ( 9 ) SO far as the other portion of the version of the incident is concerned, the complainants testimony cannot be disbelieved that the two accused persons robbed him of the currency notes. A case under section 394 IPC is, therefore, made out. ( 10 ) SO far as the legal ground urged based on section 307 Cr. P. C. is concerned, in my opinion, the principle of issue estoppel cannot be availed of by the accused. The order of conviction in this case was passed by the trial Court on 13/9/1985; whereas the order of acquittal under section 25 of the Arms Act was passed by the Magistrate on 18/7/1989. In the situation aforesaid, on the date of conviction of the appellant there was no finding and no order of acquittal. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant then addressed the Court on the question of sentence. It is submitted that the accused has suffered 14 days sentence as an under-trial and after conviction and before the grant of bail he was in jail for one month and 15 days. He has, thus, suffered a sentence of almost two months. ( 12 ) KEEPING in view the fact that the incident is of the year 1984 and the currency notes of only Rs. 212/- were robbed of, the conviction is maintained; but the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to sentence of one year. The amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be paid to the complainant Munnalal P. W. 1 as compensation. The appeal thus stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed. .