JUDGMENT The present appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh on 30th April, 1993 in S. T. No. 83/92 convicting the appellant No. 1 under section 394 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and appellant No. 2 under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3 years. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence under section 394 read with S. 397, I.P.C. against the appellant No. 1 is made out and so far as the appellant No. 2 is concerned, he has not done any overt-act in the offence said to have been committed by the appellant No. 1 except that he asked the complainant as to how he was standing there. According to learned counsel at the most an offence under section 323, I.P.C. is made out against the appellant No. 1 only. Story of looting notes from complainant Chittar Singh (P.W. 1) is false and exaggerated one. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are opposed by the Govt. Advocate. According to complainant Chittar Singh in the report lodged by him Ex. P/1 details of currency notes have not been given by him. Even in cross-examination in Court he has not given description of the currency notes. Therefore, the story that some money was snatched from him by the appellants cannot be believed on his testimony. Sitaram (P.W. 4), who is the eye-witness, has not supported him and he has been declared hostile. The report of the alleged incident was lodged after 8 hours. The incident took place at about 6.00 P.M. whereas the report was lodged at 22.30 P.M. May be that there was sufficient time to the complainant to exaggerate the story. This is apparent from the fact that in his statement he says that he was attacked by knife by appellant No. 1 Dallu whereas according to Dr. Abhay Kumar Jain (P.W. 3) there were no knife injuries on the person of complainant Chittar Singh except the simple injury caused by hard arid blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P/2. The accused-appellants have examined Pradeep Kumar Guru (D.W. 1) to deny the fact of incident but this witness has admitted the incident. Abhay Kumar Jain (P.W. 3) there were no knife injuries on the person of complainant Chittar Singh except the simple injury caused by hard arid blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P/2. The accused-appellants have examined Pradeep Kumar Guru (D.W. 1) to deny the fact of incident but this witness has admitted the incident. This witness has stated that he does not know whether the money was snatched by the appellants from the complainant. In view of above, no offence either under section 394 or 397, I.P.C. is made out except the offence under sec. 323, I.P.C. The fact is that the appellant No. 1 Dallu is in jail since last 8 months and the appellant No. 2 is on bail. In view of the fact that no overt-act is alleged against the appellant No. 2 Raju, he is acquitted of the offence mentioned above. So far as the appellant No. 1 Dallu alias Dalchand is concerned, his conviction under section 394 read with S. 397, I.P.C. is converted into one under section 323, I.P.C. and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant No. 1 Dallu alias Dalchand is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other crime. The appellant No. 2 Raju is on bail and he is being acquitted. His bail-bonds are discharged.