The appellant has been convicted u/Ss. 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment, respectively with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. The appellant along with co-accused Shivcharan was tried for the alleged offences. The allegation against the petitioner has been that while the complainant was going on his cycle on 10.11.89, the appellant assaulted the complainant by means of a lathi and having snatched his Atlas cycle, fled away from the spot. Due to the assault, the complainant suffered fracture of right humerus bone. A report was lodged by the complainant and later the cycle was seized from the possession of co-accused Shivcharan. After the trial, co-accused Shivcharan was convicted u/s. 411 I.P.C. Considering the age and the nature of the allegation against the co-accused, he was sentenced to the period of custody already undergone by him. As against the appellant, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that he was the person who had assaulted the complainant and the complainant was found to have suffered the fracture of right humerus bone. Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 4) deposed this fact and also produced the X-ray report (Ex. P/1-A). The appellant was also identified in the test-identification-parade by the complainant. But with regard to the seizure of cycle, the prosecution version was not supported by any independent witness. The cycle was also not seized from the possession of the appellant. The seizure of cycle was proved by the prosecution through the evidence of investigating officer, that too from the possession of co-accused. In this view of the evidence, that has been led by the prosecution, the appellant cannot be said to be the person who looted the property as there is no corroboration of the fact of looting of the property. The appellant, though contended that the complainant was inimical to him, but he did not succeed in proving the contention as no evidence was led to that effect. Since the prosecution could not corroborate the allegation of the looting of the property, in view of this, an offence u/s. 394 and 397 I.P.C. cannot be said to be proved. The appellant, though contended that the complainant was inimical to him, but he did not succeed in proving the contention as no evidence was led to that effect. Since the prosecution could not corroborate the allegation of the looting of the property, in view of this, an offence u/s. 394 and 397 I.P.C. cannot be said to be proved. But in view of the statement of the complainant that the appellant had assaulted him by means of lathi and the injuries were corroborated by medical evidence as well, which resulted into fracture of right humerus bone, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of offence u/s. 325 I.P.C. against the appellant. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant u/s. 394 and 397 I.P.C. are set aside and the petitioner, instead, is convicted u/s. 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The appellant has been in jail since 12.12.1989, as mentioned by the trial Court in its concluding paragraph of the judgment. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.