G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE then IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Badaun in S. T. No. 111 of 1980, State v. Kharag Singh and Mahendra Singh held the accused Kharag Singh guilty on a charge under S. 392, I. P. C. , read with S. 397, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of five years on the charge under S. 392, I. P. C. He was further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 7 years on the charge under Ss. 392/397, I. P. C. Accused Mahendra Singh was simply sentenced to undergo 5 years R. I. on the charge under S. 392, I. P. C. Both the accused have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case started on the basis of the F. I. R. , Exhibit Ka 2 lodged by the complainant Sri Dular Singh, P. W. 1 at P. S. Ujhiyani, Distt. Badaun on 31-10-97 at 7. 45 p. m. The incident is said to have taken place in the night of 30/31-10-79 at about 4 a. m. The distance of the police station is about 17 kms. from the place of occurrence. ( 3 ) IT has been alleged that in the night of 30/31-10-79 around 4 a. m. the complainant was sleeping with his servant P. W. 3 Nankoo. A tube light at the top of the tube-well was burning. There was also electric bulb in side. Both of them were giving abundant light. The window was open. About four robbers appeared all of a sudden at the tubewell and started knocking the door and were asking the inmates, namely the complainant and his servant to open the same, to which they declined. Therepuon, one robber went on the roof of the tubewell and started breaking open the same and succeeded in causing a hole. They ordered the inmates to open the door otherwise they would be shot dead. Being terrified, the inmates opened the door, which enabled all the four robbers to enter the room. Amongst the robbers, Kharag Singh and Mahendra Singh, accused appellants, were known to them from before. The remaining two were also seen but they could not be identified as their names were not known. Kharag Singh had a gun and Mahendra Singh had a bag containing a pistol. Amongst the robbers, Kharag Singh and Mahendra Singh, accused appellants, were known to them from before. The remaining two were also seen but they could not be identified as their names were not known. Kharag Singh had a gun and Mahendra Singh had a bag containing a pistol. Kharag Singh was threatening and pointing out his gun towards the complainant and his servant. The remainng three tied up these two inmates with the help of a bed sheet kept in the room. Thereafter all the robbers were engaged in cutting the wire of the motor of the tubewell (71/2 H. P.) brand Crompton, worth about Rs. 3,000. 00 After opening the same, they opened the starter worth Rs. 100. 00 also. Cotton bed sheets were also collected by the robbers and they bolted away with the booty. On cries being raised, Todi Singh, P. W. 2, Sheru Singh and others came there. Theysaw the robbers running away with the booty. Due to fear, the robbers could not be chased. 3-A. On the basis of this written F. I. R. , chik and G. D. entries were made by Constable Om Prakash Sharma, P. W. 4, then posted as Head Moharir at the police station at 7. 45 p. m. The case was registered in the G. D. vide Exhibit Ka. 2 and Exhibit Ka 3. ( 4 ) S. I. Santosh Kr. Bhardwaj, P. W. 5 was given the charge of investigation in the same morning. After copying the documents in the case diary, he recorded the statement of Head Constable O. P. Sharma, P. W. 4 and the Complainant Dular Singh, P. W. 1 at the police station itself. Thereafter he proceeded to the spot. He inspected the same and prepared a site plan, Exhibit Ka 4. He interrogated Nankoo, P. W. 3 also on the same day and tried to raid the houses of the accused. But they were not available. Ultimately he concluded the investigation and submitted a charge sheet on 2-12-79, Exhibit Ka 6. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined the following evidence in support of its case. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is Sri Dular singh, complainant. But they were not available. Ultimately he concluded the investigation and submitted a charge sheet on 2-12-79, Exhibit Ka 6. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined the following evidence in support of its case. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is Sri Dular singh, complainant. He has narrated the entire story as contained in the F. I. R. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 Nankoo, the servant of the complainant was also present all along on the spot and he has supported the prosecution version as done by P. W. 1. He identified the accused appellants on the spot. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 Todi Singh says, after hearing the cries raised by P. W. 1, he proceeded to the spot and by the time he reached, the robbers had bolted away. Therefore, he could not identify anyone of the robbers. Thus his evidence is totally unacceptable. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 Om Prakash Sharma prepared the chik and G. D. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 S. I. Sri S. K. Bhardwaj has proved the investigation process from the beginning till end. ( 11 ) ACCUSED in their statements under S. 313, Cr. P. C. have denied the allegations against them and have stated that due to enmity they have been falsely implicated. They have led no evidence in their defence. ( 12 ) AFTER perusal of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was totally proved and he accordingly, convicted the accused appellants and sentenced them as noted above. ( 13 ) THUS the appellants have come in appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned trial Court. ( 14 ) I have gone through the entire evidence available on the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is absolutely no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. ( 15 ) THIS fact is not denied that an incident of robbery took place at the tubewell of the complainant. Even in the cross-examination meted out to the two witnesses of fact, namely P. W. 1 and P. W. 3, this point has not been suggested that in fact, no robbery took place and the goods alleged by the complainant, were not taken away by the robbers. Even in the cross-examination meted out to the two witnesses of fact, namely P. W. 1 and P. W. 3, this point has not been suggested that in fact, no robbery took place and the goods alleged by the complainant, were not taken away by the robbers. When the I. O. was in the witness-box, no such suggestion was made to him that no such incident took place as suggested by the prosecution. Therefore the factum of robbery is not disputed. It is held to be proved by the evidence of the prosecution. ( 16 ) EVEN this fact is not disputed that both the accused appellants were known to the complainant and P. W. 3 long before as they belonged to the adjoining village. It has been suggested that since some of their plots fall on the way side, the tractor of the complainant used to cause damage to the crops standing in their fields, and the accused had reprimanded the complainant for that and on account of that enmity, the accused have been falsely implicated. The accused had not led any evidence on the point of enmity. The complainant and his servant Nankoo have denied this allegation. Therefore, it cannot be believed that simply on account of enmity, the accused have been falsely roped in. ( 17 ) THE accused were known from before. Therefore even, in absence of any light, they could be identified easily and correctly. Not only this, both the witnesses have alleged that there was electric light caused by the tubelight as well as electric bulb, which were burning at the time of occurrence and they remained stand still so long as the robbers remained there. Therefore, in this light, the robbers could be easily identified. Not only this, the robbers came in very close physical touch with the complainant and his servant Nankoo. Therefore, their identification became more and more and more easier. Not only this, the robbers too were helping the P. Ws. to identify them without any difficulty. It has notbeen even suggested that the accused could not be identified for want of light or opportunity available to the P. Ws. Therefore, after a thread-bare analysis of the statement of P. W. 1, it is clearly established that abundant light was available along with opportunity to the P. Ws. 1 and 3, to correctly identify the culprits which they utilised profusely. Therefore, after a thread-bare analysis of the statement of P. W. 1, it is clearly established that abundant light was available along with opportunity to the P. Ws. 1 and 3, to correctly identify the culprits which they utilised profusely. ( 18 ) IT has been alleged that both the witnesses were known from before but they had not taken any steps to conceal their faces. Therefore, normally such persons would not come to rob at the house of known person. This is no longer a correct law. ( 19 ) IN these days robbers have become dare devils and they go on challenging each and everyone who might try to take objection to their activities. They are further encouraged by the fact that nobody is prepared to appear witness against them due to fear. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that known persons will not commit robbery or dacoity without trying to conceal their identity these days even during day time known people commit murdered dacoity. I accordingly, hold that the observations made by the learned trial Court that these witnesses had correctly identified them and the robbers had not made any effort to conceal their identity, therefore, this factor does not make any dent in the prosecution case in any way at all, evidence is absolutely correct and justified and accepted by the Court. ( 20 ) THE witnesses have clearly testified that in their presence the robbers removed the machinery from their tubewell and snapped the wires. Since the motor was heavy, they divided it into three parts and made each part portable and thus they bolted away with the goods without difficulty. ( 21 ) THERE was an additional factor, which came to the help of the robbers. The place of occurrence is a grove. Crops and trees were there. The noise raised by the victims could not reach the abadi easily, giving an opportunity to the persons to come to their rescue. Therefore, so many persons from the locality would not come earlier to the rescue of the victims. This fact was known to the robbers from before as they were neighbours of the complainant. Therefore, they chose an opportunity and ideal time to commit the crime and this is how they succeeded in doing the same and also left unscathed. Therefore, so many persons from the locality would not come earlier to the rescue of the victims. This fact was known to the robbers from before as they were neighbours of the complainant. Therefore, they chose an opportunity and ideal time to commit the crime and this is how they succeeded in doing the same and also left unscathed. When their houses were raided by the I. O. soon thereafter they were not available there. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, this is an additional factor which helps the prosecution case and does go to its detriment. Minor tit-bits, here and there were brought to my notice that in order to prove the F. I. R. , P. W. 1 Dular Singh states in para 5 that he could not say as to which dacoit went at the roof of the tube-well. But one thing is sure that there was a small hole in the roof already. He could not say as to which robber was in the front, who was next to them, and who was last in the series. These are the things which did not find place in the statement of the witness under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. and on this point argument was raised that the P. Ws. 1 and 2 were not in a position to identify the culprits. All the same, the accused have no courage to say that the P. Ws. 1 and 3 were not actually present on the spot. A very valuable property in the shape of tubewell and its machinery was there in the room. The stakes were very high. Therefore, the presence of the complainant and his servant was quite natural at that place and time. Hence both these witnesses were present on the spot and their presence cannot be doubted nor has it been so disputed. ( 23 ) ANOTHER fact was brought to my notice that it was not said by the P. Ws. that the machinery was divided into three parts and made portable by the robbers in their statement under S. 161, Cr. P. C. and the F. I. R. , These are the matters of minute details. They do not find place either in the statement under S. 161, Cr. P. C. or in the F. I. R. F. I. R. is not supposed to be an encyclopaedia of all facts. P. C. and the F. I. R. , These are the matters of minute details. They do not find place either in the statement under S. 161, Cr. P. C. or in the F. I. R. F. I. R. is not supposed to be an encyclopaedia of all facts. The complainant has clearly said that he did not deem it proper to get these facts noted in the F. I. R. or under S. 161, Cr. P. C. ( 24 ) HE has clearly stated that before the robbers had bolted away, he and his servant could not raise an alarm due to fear. This is quite natural. When their lives were in danger, they would not raise noise in their presence. After all nothing is dearer to a person than his life. He has further stated in para 6 that this was the first theft of this kind at his tubewell and in all it took at about an hour for the robbers to unbolt the machinery and make it into three parts. By thetime the robbers had left, the sun had not arisen but some fade light was available and the birds were chirping. Thus after a threadbare analysis of the statement of P. W. 1, the complainant himself, it is sufficient to record a conviction of the accused in this case. ( 25 ) THE statement of the complainant has to be read along with the statement of P. W. 3, Nankoo, his own servant, whose presence has not been denied nor disputed. It has simply alleged that on account of his being the servant of P. W. 1, he has given a false evidence, which he has denied. ( 26 ) THE evidence of a person has not to be disbelieved simply because he is a partisan or related to the prosecutor. It has to be weighed as to whether he was present or not and, secondly, if he is telling the truth or not. On these points, this witness has reamined unscathed despite a very gruelling cross-examination at the hands of a very senior lawyer and nothing has been brought out on the basis of which, it could be said that he is not telling the truth or whole truth. On these points, this witness has reamined unscathed despite a very gruelling cross-examination at the hands of a very senior lawyer and nothing has been brought out on the basis of which, it could be said that he is not telling the truth or whole truth. He has stuck to the position that he saw the accused committing the crime with his own eyes and in the electric light available on the spot, he identified them correctly. Moreover, these two appellants were known from before. In para 2, it has been asked whether he knew the depth of the well. He replied that he never went in side tubewell and on this point it was argued that he is not telling the truth. I do not agree. ( 27 ) THESE are the things which an illiterate person like this servant cannot tell because he himself did not enter into the well ever in his life. On the reamining points, he has supported the prosecution case very robustly. I find that his solitary evidence is sufficient to record a conviction against the appellants. But when it is read along with the statement of P. W. 1 it becomes an impregnable rock of integrity and truth. There is no reason as to why it should be disbelieved. ( 28 ) THE learned trial Court had the privilege to watch the demeanour of the witness, a privilege not extended to this Court. Moreover, the learned trial Court has scanned the entire evidence and circumstances very critically and has given cogent reasons based on evidence on record for coming to a conclusion that these accused appellants had committed the crime and they had been identified. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. ( 29 ) A technical mistake has been committed by the learned trial Court. It is this that he has convicted the accused Kharag Singh firstly on the charge under S. 392, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R. I. He has again convicted him on the charge under S. 392, 397, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R. I. This is not proper. ( 30 ) SECTION 397, I. P. C. does not create a separate offence. ( 30 ) SECTION 397, I. P. C. does not create a separate offence. It has to be read with the principal offence and with the aid of S. 397, I. P. C. conviction should be not less than 7 years otherwise it has no other meaning. So the sentence passed by the learned trial Court has to be modified as are under Ss. 392/397, I. P. C. as regards accused Kharag Singh. ( 31 ) AS regards accused Mahendra Singh, his sentence and conviction is correct. ( 32 ) IT has been argued that the crime took place long ago and the accused should be given some leniency in sentence. I do not agree. ( 33 ) THESE days crimes are increasing day by day and the criminals have become dare devils. Instead of concealing their identity, they go on challenging each and everyone openly without any fear. The time has come when the Court of law must cry from the house top. thus far and no further. Under these circumstances, the prayer to reduce the sentence, which is already very soft, cannot be attended to. It is, accordingly, rejected. ( 34 ) THE appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed except with the modification that the accused Kharag Singh is convicted on the charge only under Ss. 392/397, I. P. C. as and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. His sentence under S. 392, I. P. C. simpliciter is set aside. Kharag Singh appellant is already in jail. ( 35 ) AS regards accused appellant Mahendra Singh, he is not in jail. He shall be got arrested by the C. J. concerned forthwith by issuing a non-bailable warrant against him and show cause notices to the sureties. The C. J. M. shall ensure compliance of this order forthwith and shallsubmit a compliance report within a month thereafter. Appeal dismissed. .