D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE above two appeals arise out of the same judgment in a case under Section 397, I. P. C. Appellant Ramakanta assails his conviction under Section 397, I. P. C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine years and appellant Mahendra assails his conviction under Section 411, I. P. C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is, P. W. 1 at the relevant time was serving as a teacher in Jayanagar L. P. School under Chandipur Police Station in the district of Balasore. On 30-11-1987 around 3 p. m. she was returning from the said school on the path through the paddy field: At that time appellant Ramakanta caught hold of her by gagging her mouth. At this P. W. 1 gave a bite to the finger of the appellant. The appellant thereafter gave a fist blow on the face of P. W. 1 causing an injury and dislocation of teeth. She fell down on the ground. Appellant Ramakanta snatched away from her neck one gold necklace, a pair of golden ear-rings from her ears, and a pair of golden Bahuti from her wrist. He also took away her wrist watch and cash of Rs. 500/- from her purse. The matter being reported to the police, investigation was taken up and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant Ramakanta and he faced trial and was convicted as stated above. ( 3 ) SO far as appellant Mahendra is concerned, during investigation, golden ear-rings and necklace were seized from him on his production and the prosecution came out with a case that having known these ornaments to have been stolen, the appellant Mahendra had retained them and therefore he was charged, tried and convicted under Section 411, I. P. C. I may take up the case of appellant Mahendra for the offence punishable under Section 411, I. P. C. ( 4 ) MR. P. K. Dhal, learned Counsel for the appellant Mahendra submitted that the learned trial Court committed gross error in appreciating the case of the defence inasmuch as, according to Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned Counsel for the appellant Mahendra submitted that the learned trial Court committed gross error in appreciating the case of the defence inasmuch as, according to Mr. Dhal, the trial Court did not take into account firstly that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the ornaments in question and secondly, even if assuming that the same has been so approved, yet the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant retained those ornaments with the knowledge that they were stolen by appellant Ramakanta. The points so raised need examination. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 admitted in her evidence that there was no specific identifying mark in M. O. II, earrings. She further admitted that such type of ornaments would be commonly available in the open market. In the absence of any identification mark, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that on the date of occurrence P. W. 1 was wearing those ornaments while appellant Ramakanta snatched away the ear-rings from her ear and committed the offence. There is no corroborative evidence that the P. W. 1 had put on those earrings. To add to this the very fact which she admitted in the cross-examination that she did not sustain any injury in the ear when the appellant Ramakanta snatched away the earrings, rather makes her case of wearing any earring doubtful. It sounds improbable that she did not sustain injury in such a situation. ( 6 ) APART from this, P. W. 6 is the Magistrate who conducted the T. I. Parade. He is silent that when he conducted the T. I. Parade, these ornaments were properly sealed before they were put in the parade for identification. The evidence of P. W. 9 the Investigating Officer is silent as to whether the ornaments were sealed or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the question of identity of a particular article which is the subject matter of robbery is in question it was incumbent on the investigating agency to keep it in such custody and in such a manner which would eliminate the possibility of the witness seeing the articles before they are put to the T. I Parade. In the absence of any evidence as to this, the possibility of P. W. I having seen the ornaments prior to the T. I Parade could not have been ruled out. Therefore even if it was identified in the T. I. Parade, such identification lost its importance. ( 7 ) SO far as knowledge of the appellant that the ornaments were the subject matter of any theft or robbery is concerned, I find the prosecution has failed to prove this. P. W. 7 is the witness to the recovery and seizure of ornaments from the appellant. He stated in his evidence that appellant Ramakanta while in police custody gave information to have sold the ornaments to the appellant and thereafter led the Investigating Officer to the jewellary shop of the appellant from where the ornaments were seized on production by the appellant. He stated that the appellant Mahendra brought out M. Os. I and II from the show case of his shop. This witness in the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. had stated that the appellant Mahendra had kept this from Sk. Mohd. Deban who had mediated to sell those ornaments to appellant Mahendra. The said Sk. Mohd. Deban was also tried along with this appellant for the charge under Section 411, I. P. C. but then the trial Court acquitted him in the absence of any evidence. ( 8 ) SINCE this appellant and Sk. Mohd. Deban were charged under Section 411, I. P. C. and the latter accused has been acquitted, there was no justification for the trial Court to record a conviction so for as appellant Mahendra is concerned merely on the basis of the material on record that the articles were seized from him. Law is well settled that to make anybody liable for the offence of receiving stolen property, the prosecution must prove that he received the properties knowing them to be stolen. There is no material on record to hold that appellant Mahendra received the articles from the appellant Ramakanta knowing them to be stolen. Further the inconsistency of the evidence of P. W. 7 when compared with his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. also makes the case against appellant Mahendra doubtful. There is no material on record to hold that appellant Mahendra received the articles from the appellant Ramakanta knowing them to be stolen. Further the inconsistency of the evidence of P. W. 7 when compared with his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. also makes the case against appellant Mahendra doubtful. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the charge against appellant Mahendra under Section 411, I. P. C. fails and he is acquitted of the charge and the bail bond executed by him stands discharged. ( 10 ) NEXT I take up the case of appellant Ramakanta. Mr. B. S. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the gold ornaments, the case against the appellant Ramakanta so far as the offence under Section 397, I. P. C. is concerned should also be disbelieved. I am unable to accept this contention because it is nowhere laid down that in case of theft, robbery or dacoity if the articles are not recovered, the accused should be acquitted. The other submission of Mr. Das that there is no evidence on record to sustain the conviction passed against him, may be examined. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 alone stated about the occurrence. She corroborated the material facts stated in the F. I. R. when she stated in her evidence that the appellant gagged her mouth and in order to escape she gave a bite which injured the finger of the appellant. This part of her evidence has also been stated in the F. I. R. There is also no inconsistency in the statement with regard to her evidence as. to manner of assault and the removal of gold necklace from her neck and bangles from her hand. The occurrence took place at 3. 00 p. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged at 5. 00 p. m. at Chandipur Police Station. This close proximity of time between the time of occurrence and the lodging of the F. I. R. rules out any possibility of P. W. 1 fabricating a false case against the appellant. That she received the injuries on her person as a result of the assault by the appellant has been amply corroborated by the evidence of doctor P. W. 3, who examined her on the same day at 6. That she received the injuries on her person as a result of the assault by the appellant has been amply corroborated by the evidence of doctor P. W. 3, who examined her on the same day at 6. 15 p. m. and found injuries such as abrasion with bleeding on the upper part of both the hands, abrasion with swelling and tenderness on the upper part of the mouth and the injury was found to be of reddish colour. There was loosening of three teeth of the lower jaw and dislocation of the central tooth of the lower jaw with bleeding present. Therefore it is amply proved that it was the appellant who snatched away the necklace and. the bangles from the person of P. W. 1 and to facilitate such removal he assaulted P. W. 1 and caused those injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 stated that at the precise moment while he was going to his paddy field in Rana Sahi he saw the appellant running towards his village Rana Sahi and P. W. 1 was crying while proceeding towards village Jhagadapadi. She narrated the way the appellant snatched away the pair of gold ornaments and caused the injuries. P. W. 4 further stated to have seen bleeding from her mouth. Practically there has been no cross-examination to this witness and his testimony therefore has not in any way been impeached. P. W. ls statement to P. W. 4 about the occurrence immediately thereafter is an evidence highly relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and thus strengthens the prosecution case in general and the evidence of P. W. 1 in particular. ( 13 ) THE same way is the evidence of P. W. 2, the brother of P. W. 1, who stated to have met her at 4. 00 p. m. in his house and that P. W. 1 stated about the occurrence the way it had taken place. ( 14 ) IN view of the unimpeached evidence of P. W. I, duly corroborated by the story stated in the F. I. R. , Ext. 1 and her evidence having been further corroborated by P. Ws. 2, 4, 5 and the doctor, P. W. 3. I have no hesitation to affirm the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant Ramakanta who while committing robbery caused grievous injury/hurt to P. W. 1. 1 and her evidence having been further corroborated by P. Ws. 2, 4, 5 and the doctor, P. W. 3. I have no hesitation to affirm the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant Ramakanta who while committing robbery caused grievous injury/hurt to P. W. 1. ( 15 ) IT was admitted by Mr. Das that the appellant was a young man of 24 years of age at the time when he was taken to custody and by now he is in custody for more than 4 years and therefore a lenient view may be taken in reducing the imprisonment. Considering the age of the appellant as stated by Mr. Das, I feel that the minimum sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment as prescribed under Section 397, I. P. C. would meet the ends of justice. ( 16 ) IN the result, criminal appeal of appellant Mahendra is allowed and his conviction is set aside and criminal appeal of Ramakanta is dismissed with modification that the substantive sentence of 9 years of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to 7 years. The seized gold ornaments be delivered to P. W. 1, if not, already delivered. Appeal Not 364/89 allowed. Appeal No. 28/90 dismissed. .