S. C. JAIN, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Sonai, Dhanman and Malai against judgment and order dated 4- 12-1979 passed by IV Addi tional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 1979 whereby the appellants Sonai and Malai were convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394, I. P. C. and appellant Dhanman was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years under Section 394 read with Section 397,i. P. C. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned State Counsel and perused record of the case. 3. The facts having rise to this appeal are that Jai Ram, Complainant alongwith his family members, i. e. , his wife, Smt. Munai, son Govind and daguhter-in-law, Smt, Rauni, were living in a hut at a distance of two miles from village Ori in a grove at the outskirts of the village. There was no other inhabitation near about the hut of Jai Ram. 4. In the night between 5/6-3-1979 at about 12-30 a. m. all the appellants, namely, Sonai, Dhanman and Malai committed robbery of the property of Jai Ram from his hut and during the course of commission of robbory they used fire-arms and caused injuries to Govind and Jai Ram and, therefore, they were charged to face trial under Section 394/397, I. P. C. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record and either circumstances the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur by his judgment and order date4 4-12-1979 found the appellants, Sonai and Malai guilty under Section 394, I. P. C. and accused Dhanman was found guilty under Section 394 read with Section 397, I. P. C. Appellants Sonai and Malai were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 394, I. P. C. and appellant, Dhanman was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 read with Section 397, I. P. C. 6. Feeling aggrieved, all these three appellants have filed this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants challenged judgment on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the first information report was not lodged immediately after the occurrence but it was lodged on the next day in the morning. Feeling aggrieved, all these three appellants have filed this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants challenged judgment on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the first information report was not lodged immediately after the occurrence but it was lodged on the next day in the morning. The second argument was that the withesses examined by the prosecution are close relations and that on the basis of the statements of these withesses who are near relations conviction of the appellants is bad. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that during dark hours of the night it was not possible tor the withesses to see the faces of the accused persons and therefore, in the absence of proper identification of the accused persons the conviction of these appellants is bad. According to the leathed Counsel, these appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of police. 8. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants in the present circumstances of the case. 9. As per the record, the hut of Jai Ram where he was living along-with his family members was at the out-skirts of the village and there was no inhabitation near that hut and during dark hours of the night when the incident took place there could be no other withesses to state about the occurrence. The inmates of the house of the complainant, Jai Ram could be the only withess who could depose about incident. The statements of Jai Ram, PW 1 and his wife, Smt. Munai, PW 2 and his son Govind PW 4, are corroborative in nature. As far as the factum of robbery at the house of Jai Ram is concerned, it has also come in the evidence that these appellants were known to Jai Ram from earlier as they were sisters son of Laxman, was was residing in the same village and that they used to come in that village earlier also. It has also come in the evidence that it was not expected from any one else to be present there at the side of the hut at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances these withesses cannot be doubted that they were not in position to identify these appellants a robbers. The factum of robbery is not in dispute. It has also come in the evidence that it was not expected from any one else to be present there at the side of the hut at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances these withesses cannot be doubted that they were not in position to identify these appellants a robbers. The factum of robbery is not in dispute. Salt Munai, wife of Jai Ram was found to have an abrasion on the left wrist joint and as par her statement this abrasion injury was caused while taking out her silver Kara from her hand by these robbers. This statement of PW 2 Munai finds corrobaration from the statement of the doctor P, L. Pandey, PW 3 who found the injuries on the back of left wrist joint and this injury could be caused if a silver Kara was snatched from Smt. Munai. Jai Ram and his son, Govind were also found to have injuries on their persons as has come in the statement of Dr. P. L. Pandey, PW 3and the injury report, Ext. Ka 2 and Ka 3. As per the medical report Jai Ram had three injuries and Govind had one injury. These injuries were found to have been caused by gun shot as those injuries were gun shot injuries. From the statement of Dr. P. L. Pandey, who exa mined the injured and other circumstances of the case the learned trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that robbery was committed at the house of the complainant in which gun shot injuries were caused and silver ornaments were robbed. 10. On the point of identification from the record it is borne out that there were two sources of light at that time-one was the lantern burning at the hut and other was the light created by burning of the hut. 11. The Investigating Officer has also corroborated these facts of lantern burning on the spot. This fact has also not been disputed and rebutted that the appellants were already known to the complainant. There could not have been any difficulty in recognising the appellants in the light at the place of occurrence at the time when these accused were known to the complainant earlier. The learned trial court has correctly appreciate the facts and law while convicting the appellants and sentencing them. There could not have been any difficulty in recognising the appellants in the light at the place of occurrence at the time when these accused were known to the complainant earlier. The learned trial court has correctly appreciate the facts and law while convicting the appellants and sentencing them. It has come in the statement of the withesses which has not been rebutted that it is Dhanman, appellant No. 2, who caused injuries to Jai Ram and his son Govind while committing robbery and, therefore, his case is covered by the provisions of Section 394 read with Section 397 I. P. C. 12. Keeping in view in gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed and the fact that the injury was caused at the time of robbery, I do not find that any lenient view can be taken on the point of sentence in such type of cases. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. The appellants are on bail. They will be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to them. However, they are entitled to the benefit of Section 428, Cr. P. C. Appeal dismissed. .