JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 26-9-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case Nos. 125/83 and 114/84, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. for the offence under section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-- The informant Ramdas Devram Mule P.W. 1 was working with Mazgaon Vikas Mandal which had milk centres in Mazgaon area. The proceeds of the sale of the milk of different centres used to be deposited at Worli Dairy, Bombay. On 25-10-1982, at about 8.15 a.m. he was carrying cash of Rs. 53,000/- in a rexine bag for depositing at the Worli Dairy. The said amount was from the sale proceeds of milk. He had engaged the taxi bearing No. MRO 4036 from Mazgaon. One Akbarali Isaquali Shaikh was driving this taxi. The informant's taxi halted at Worli Naka junction on account of road traffic signal. It is said that the appellants engaged another taxi bearing No. MMT 2013 in front of Geeta Cinema on Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli. The said taxi was driven by one Mohammed Harun Shaikh P.W. 2. The appellant Shrikant @ Shashikant Naik and Sudhakar Damodar Phadkar along with the acquitted accused Vijay Suresh Devrukhkar sat on the rear seat of the taxi and the appellant Tanaji Baburao Kamble sat in the front near the driver. He pointed out a knife to Mohd. Harun Shaikh and all the appellants made Mohd. Harun Shaikh chase the taxi bearing No. MRO 4036 in which the informant was proceeding. Near Atre Printing Press, on B.G. Kher Marg, the taxi of the appellants overtook the informant's taxi and blocked its way. The appellants Shrikant Naik, Sudhakar Phadkar and Vijay Devrukhkar got down from the taxi and went towards the informant's taxi and accosted him. The appellant Shrikant and the acquitted accused Vijay Devrukhkar pointed out knives on the stomach and back of Mule respectively and the appellant Sudhakar pointed out a gupti on the back side of his neck. Understandably the informant got nervous and the rexine bag wherein he was carrying Rs. 53,000/- slipped from his hand and fell inside the taxi. The appellant Shrikant picked up the same and followed by the appellant Sudhakar and the acquitted accused Vijay started running. Understandably the informant got nervous and the rexine bag wherein he was carrying Rs. 53,000/- slipped from his hand and fell inside the taxi. The appellant Shrikant picked up the same and followed by the appellant Sudhakar and the acquitted accused Vijay started running. The appellant Tanaji Kamble, who was in Mohd. Harun's taxi also got down and started running. The informant raised cries 'chor chor' and started chasing the appellants and Vijay. One Harishchandra Maruti Jadhav who was driving taxi bearing No. MMQ 1035 and who happened to be at that time at B.G. Kher Road offered lift to the informant and in that taxi, the informant chased the appellants and Vijay. At Worli Naka junction, he succeeded in catching hold of the appellant Shrikant and took from him the rexine bag containing the cash. Members of the public who had gathered there caught hold of the appellant Sudhakar. It is said that Tanaji Kamble and Vijay managed to run away. The appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar were taken by the police which happened to be present there, to Worli Naka police chowky where they were searched in the presence of panchas. A knife was recovered from the pant pocket of Shrikant and a gupti which was concealed near the under-pant of Sudhakar, from Sudhakar. The said recoveries were made under panchanamas by H.C. Manjrekar P.W. 16. Thereafter, H.C. Manjrekar took the said appellants to Worli Police Station along with the taxi drivers Mohd. Harun Shaikh and Akbarali Shaikh who had also arrived there. There the appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar were produced before S.I. Kailash Ghamande P.W. 17. At that time, S.I. Arote P.I. Parab P.W. 18 were also present. 2.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant Mule same day at about 12.15 noon at police station Worli. On its basis, C.R. No. 829 of 1982, under section 394, 397 I.P.C. was registered by P.I. Parab. Pursuant to its lodging, the appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar were arrested. 3.The case was investigated by P.I. Parab who on 26-10-1982 at about 2.30 a.m. arrested the appellant Tanaji Kamble near Kamgar Krida Mandal at Senapati Bapat Marg. He searched the house of Tanaji Kamble in the presence of two panchas and recovered a knife from beneath cupboard and motor driving licence from the said cupboard. The knife and the motor driving licence were seized under a panchanama. He searched the house of Tanaji Kamble in the presence of two panchas and recovered a knife from beneath cupboard and motor driving licence from the said cupboard. The knife and the motor driving licence were seized under a panchanama. 4.Since the appellant Tanaji Kamble was unknown to the witnesses and had not been apprehended on the spot, he was put up for test identification on 28-10-1982 at Worli Police Station. The said identification was conducted by SEM Nana Shankar Thosar P.W. 6. At the test parade, he was identified by the informant Mule and Mohd. Harun Shaikh. The latter identified him saying that he was the person who pointed out a knife on his person. After completion of the investigation, the appellants, acquitted accused Vijay and one Milind Karkare were charge-sheeted, by the police. The last name was discharged by the Metropolitan Magistrate and remaining persons after commitment of the case, were put up for trial. During trial, the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses. In defence no witness was examined. The learned trial Judge acquitted Vijay @ Vijay Devrukhkar but convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated in para 1. Hence, this appeal. 5.We have heard Mr. Siddharth Patil holding for Mr. R.S. Mohite for the appellants and Mr. R.S. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra-respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material Exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, we have no hesitation in concluding that this appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6.We propose discussing the case of the appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar separately from that of Tanaji Kamble. Shrikant and Sudhakar, as would become clear from the averments contained in para 3, were apprehended on the spot. From the possession of the appellant Shrikant, a rexine bag wherein Rs. 53,000/- was kept and which the informant Mule was going to deposit at the Worli Dairy, Bombay was seized by Mule. The appellant Sudhakar was also apprehended near about the place where the appellant Shrikant was but by the members of the public. From the possession of the appellant Shrikant, a rexine bag wherein Rs. 53,000/- was kept and which the informant Mule was going to deposit at the Worli Dairy, Bombay was seized by Mule. The appellant Sudhakar was also apprehended near about the place where the appellant Shrikant was but by the members of the public. It is pertinent to point out that the knife and gupti respectively which the appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar had pointed out towards Mule, at the time of commission of the robbery, were also recovered under two panchanamas. It is significant to point out that these two appellants have not been able to shake their spot-arrest and recovery weapons and the appellant Shrikant has not been able to dislodge seizing of the rexine bag containing Rs. 53,000/- from him by the informant Mule. The prosecution has led over-whelming evidence against these appellants. The same comprises of the informant Mule, taxi driver Harun, H.C. Manjrekar and public panchas of the recovery of weapons. The said evidence, in our judgment, inspires confidence and has remained unshaken in their cross-examination. In addition, we find that the evidence of Finger Print Expert shows that in the taxi of Harun, finger prints of appellant Shrikant were found. The evidence of the Finger Print Expert is an additional piece of evidence against him. In our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in upholding the conviction of these appellants. 7.We now take up the case of appellant Tanaji Kamble. His case rests on identification evidence. At the test parade, he was identified by the informant Mule P.W. 1 and Mohd Harun P.W. 2. It is true that inasmuch as the evidence of Mohd Harun is to the effect that this appellant remained sitting in his taxi, the evidence of the informant fixing him as one of those who had robbed him becomes difficult to accept. The trial Judge in this regard has observed that on account of confusion, the informant Mule pointed out towards appellant Tanaji Kamble as the person who also attempted to rob him. We are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the trial Judge because in broad day light on the point of knives and gupti, the informant was robbed and it was natural if he became confused. We are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the trial Judge because in broad day light on the point of knives and gupti, the informant was robbed and it was natural if he became confused. Even after ignoring the identification evidence of the informant Mule, there remains against the appellant-Tanaji Kamble, the evidence of identification of Mohd. Harun. The said identification was held within 3 days of the incident. At the test parade, Mohd. Harun identified him as the person who had pointed out a knife towards him. This evidence of identification could not be assailed in any manner. Having gone through the evidence of SEM Nana Thosar P.W. 6 and that of P.I. Parab P.W. 18 who arrested this appellant, we find that not only the identification was conducted in accordance with law but the said appellant was not shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification. It is significant to point out that in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. this appellants has not stated that he was shown nor any suggestion was given to P.I. Parab that he was shown prior to the test identification. In our judgment, the solitary identification of Mohd. Harun P.W. 2 is good enough to sustain his conviction. 8.We also feel that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting the appellants under section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. Section 390 I.P.C. reads thus: 390. Robbery.---In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. "When theft is robbery: Theft is 'robbery' if in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint............." A perusal of the above provision would show that theft would be robbery if :- (a) in order to committing of the theft or; (b) in committing theft or; (c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft the offender for that end, meaning one of the ends from (a) to (c) voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. The evidence of the eye-witnesses to which we have referred above shows that in order to facilitate the commission of theft, the appellant-Tanaji Kamble pointed a knife towards the taxi driver Mohd. Harun Shaikh and in committing theft, the appellants Shrikant and Sudhakar pointed out a knife and a gupti respectively towards the informant Mule. Thus Mohd. Harun Shaikh, and Mule were at least caused fear of instant hurt by the appellants. This evidence shows that the three appellants were guilty of an offence punishable under section 392 I.P.C. 9.We also find that all the three appellants did commit the offence punishable under section 397 I.P.C. The said offence envisages the use of a deadly weapon, during the commission of robbery and dacoity. It is too late in the day to dispute that knife is a deadly weapon. But, those of us who have a fetish for authorities, may peruse the observations contained in para 5 of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court page 904 (Ashok Kumar v. State of Delhi Administration)1, wherein the Supreme Court held that knife is a deadly weapon. 10.This leaves us with the question of sentence. Since the minimum sentence for offence under section 397 I.P.C. is 7 years R.I. and the appellants have only been sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. under section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C., there can be no question of reducing their sentence. 11.In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The convictions and sentences of the appellants are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the learned Counsel for the parties in the disposal of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. *****