Judgment : This appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the two appellants on 11. 1989 by the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case may be stated thus: On 12. 1988 at 4.45 a.m., the appellants 1 and 2 way laid one Reeman Sundarsingh, who was working as a Police Constable, at that time, at Coimbatore, at Bharathiyar Road near Bharathiyar Park, stabbed him with knives causing injuries and relieved from P.W.1 a gold chain weighting 1 1/4 sovereigns, Rs.200 in cash and H.M.T. watch. 3. Ten witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Fourteen exhibits and seven material objects have been marked. The injured witness P. W. 1 gave evidence that he was working as a traffic constable in B-2, R.S. Puram Police Station at Coimbatore, and he was attached to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was residing in the P.R.S. Policequarters in A.No.9-of 1979. On 12. 1988, he proceeded to Tirunelveli after obtaining due permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with his family for a marriage. He boarded a bus from Tirunelveli and reached Coimbatore at 4.15 a.m. on 12. 1988 and alighted at the Tiruvalluvar Bus Stand, Coimbatore. After taking tea, he proceeded to this house by walk through Bharathiyar Road. He was walking from west to east. When he approached Bharathiyar Park, the appellants came in the opposite. On approaching him, both the appellants surrounded him, each took a knife from their waist and stabbed P. W.1. He awarded off the blows with his two hands and sustained an injury on the right ring finger and another injury on the left middle finger and there was bleeding. The first appellant Lakshmanan and the second appellant Murugan alias Balamurugan pressed their knives on the abdomen and on the back respectively, threatened him and raised his shirt. Thereafter, both the appellants snatched the gold minor chain with a cross, and took away Rs.200 from the shirt pocket. The second appellant Murugan alias Balamurugan took away the H.M.T watch from his left hand. P.W.1 had stated that in the watch chain the name of his mother Sanjeevi had been engrossed. When he disclosed his identity he is a police constable, both the appellants took to their heels towards Sithaputhur. Though he chased, he could not catch them. The second appellant Murugan alias Balamurugan took away the H.M.T watch from his left hand. P.W.1 had stated that in the watch chain the name of his mother Sanjeevi had been engrossed. When he disclosed his identity he is a police constable, both the appellants took to their heels towards Sithaputhur. Though he chased, he could not catch them. It was 4.45 a.m., when the occurrence took place. He could identify the accused, if he could see them. Near the place of occurrence electric mercury lamp was burning. After that, he went to the auto-stand near R.V. Hotel adjacent to the Tiruvalluvar Bus stand. The auto driver Ravichandran took him in his auto to the C.M.C. Hospital and the Doctor, P.W.2, gave treatment as out-patient. Thereafter, he went to D-4 Police Station at Coimbatore and gave a written report Ex.P-1, to the sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case and gave him a copy of the F.I.R. The Sub Inspector of Police seized his blood-stained shirt and bag, M.Os. 1 and 2. P. W. 1 had identified the knife used by the first appellant, Lakshmanan as M.O.3 and the other knife used by the second appellant, Murugan alias Balamurugan, as M.O.4 Later, he identified the accused before the Judicial Magistrate P. W.3, on 11. 1989 in the identification parade. The minor gold chain worn by him was identified as M.O.5, gold cross attached to the chain as M.0.6 and H.M.T. Watch as M.0.7. Thiru M.C. Palanisamy, Inspector of Police, P.W.10, took up investigation, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused on 20.12.1988 and ultimately, filed chargesheet against the appellants under Secs.394 and 394 read with Sec.397, I.P.C. 4. When the trial of the case was taken up by the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, after committal by the Judicial Magistrate, both the appellants denied the offence and claimed to be tried. The learned First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge on an appreciation of the evidence placed before him, reached the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and recorded a finding of conviction and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. The correctness of the same is being challenged in this appeal. 5. The correctness of the same is being challenged in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.S.E. Victor, forcibly urged before this Court that P.W.1 had not stated in the complaint given before the Sub Inspector of Police, namely Ex.P-1, that a gold cross was attached to the minor chain. M.O.5, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. He had also not stated in Ex.P-1 that the name of his mother, Sanjeevi, is engrossed in the chain. The test identification parade was conducted long after the occurrence and the appellants have been identified as the police the have taken photographs and shown to P.W.1, I gave my anxious consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and read the evidence very carefully. After doing so, I find it difficult to be persuaded by the argument of the counsel for the appellants. It is the duty of the court to portray the circumstances under which the occurrence took place and the agitated mood in which the complaint was given by P.W.1 in the police station within a short time of the occurrence. P.W.1 is a police constable and he never anticipated that he would be accosted by the two appellants in the early hours of the day, when he got down from the bus at the Tiruvalluvar Bus Stand at about 4.15 a.m. on the date of the occurrence and was walking towards his house. Suddenly, he was way laid by the two appellants and they not only threatened him but also stabbed him causing bleeding injuries. When he disclosed that he was a police constable, both the appellants ran away and thereafter, P.W.1 went to the auto-stand, took an auto and immediately went to the hospital where fortunately, it was found that the injuries were simple and he was treated as an outpatient. Thereafter, he proceed to the police station, himself and gave the report. From the above, it is clear that P.W.1 was in an agitated mood and therefore, it is too much to expect that he ought to have given all these minute details in the complaint. After all a police constable is also a human being. 6. Thereafter, he proceed to the police station, himself and gave the report. From the above, it is clear that P.W.1 was in an agitated mood and therefore, it is too much to expect that he ought to have given all these minute details in the complaint. After all a police constable is also a human being. 6. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to accept the contentions, raised on behalf of the appellants and find that no reasonable doubt has been created in the version of the prosecution case. In my opinion, the evidence, of P.W.1, the injured witness, is spontaneous in the sense that he is a north Indian and he does not know the appellants before and he has no axe to grind. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is credit worthy and absolutely believable. There is absolutely no extenuating circumstance or any other circumstance to throw a doubt on the case of the prosecution in any manner. I am therefore inclined to hold that the learned First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore has appreciated the evidence, as per canons of judicial prudence and reached the correct conclusion and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. 7. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the lower court is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 16768 of 1989 is also dismissed. The appellants are in bail. They should surrender their to bail bonds forthwith, failing which warrant shall be issued for their arrest and sending them to the prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence. After they are sent to prison, the superintendent of the concerned prison shall make them available the remission under the various G.Os. applicable to the case of the appellants, if so permitted by the G.Os.