Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah (Bhojpur) dated 22-9-1994 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The accused was originally charged under Sec. 395, I.P.C., but the trial Court came to the conclusion that no cases under Sec. 395, I.P.C. is made out and accordingly convicted him under Sec. 392, I.P.C. 2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 21-1-1993 the informant Ramruchi Pathak (P.W. 6) was going to his village from Piro along with Sheoparsan Singh, Sheoparsan Tiwary, Tuntun Singh and others. When he reached near Barauli Mor at Piro Agiaon Road at about 7.00 p.m. all on a sudden 4 to 5 persons armed with Lathi and Danda surrounded them. One of the miscreants assaulted the informant with lathi and demanded money, from him. On refusal by the informant to part with the money the miscreants took out his shirt and also taken away Rs. 5,000.00 kept in his pocket. They also snatched Rs. 75.00 from Sheoparsan Tiwary (P.W. 4) and Rs. 150.00 from Pyarchand Ram. They also snatched other belonging of the remaining persons. It is further case of the prosecution that the miscreants also surrounded one rickshaw puller who was returning from the village and assaulted him when he refused to part with the money. Among the miscreants the informant had identified Nathuni Chaudhary (appellant) because the appellant resides in his neighbouring village situated at a distance of one and half bigha. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 21-1-1993 at 21.30 hours at Government Hospital, Piro where the informant was treated and on the basis of it formal F.I.R. was drawn up. After commitment the trial proceeded in the Court below. 3. The case of the defence is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case because of previous enmity and on account of one Jaimangal Singh, co-villager. 4. On behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses have been examined, out of which P.W. 1 (Sheoparsan Tiwary) supported the case of the informant as he was accompanying the informant at the time of occurrence along with other witnesses. He stated that one of the miscreants was armed with country made gun. 4. On behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses have been examined, out of which P.W. 1 (Sheoparsan Tiwary) supported the case of the informant as he was accompanying the informant at the time of occurrence along with other witnesses. He stated that one of the miscreants was armed with country made gun. He stated that miscreants took away the shirt of the informant which had Rs. 5,000.00 in its pocket. From his possession the miscreants snatched Rs. 75.00 and from the pocket of Tuntun Singh Rs. 100.00 . Other persons were also robbed by them. He identified the appellant among the miscreants. He also identified him in the dock. He had informed the Piro police about the occurrence. 5. P.W. 2 (Tuntun Singh) is another witness who was accompanying the informant. He was also assaulted by the miscreants along with informant and P.W. 1. They snatched Rs. 100.00 from his possession. Among the miscreants he identified the accused-appellant Nathuni Chaudhary. P.W. 3 (Pyarchand Ram) has been tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 4 (Sheoparsan Singh) was accompanying the informant at the time of occurrence. He supported the case of the informant. As stated above the miscreants snatched Rs. 20/25 from his possession. He, however, failed to identify any accused including the appellant. P.W. 5 (Reyajudding Khan) has stated that the miscreants snatched Rs. 50.00 from his possession and he was also assaulted on his head and he became unconscious. He could not identify any of the accused-persons. He is a rickshaw puller. He was treated in the hospital of his injury in the head. 6. P.W. 6 (Ramruchi Pathak) is the informant. He supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the fardbeyan. According to him, about 4-5 accused-persons surrounded them and his shirt was snatched which contained Rs. 5,000.00 . He was assaulted by the miscreants and was removed to Piro State Dispensary where he was treated. His fardbeyan was recorded in the hospital itself over which he has signed as Ext. 1. He identified the appellant Nathuni Chaudhary among the miscreants. According to him, the appellant resides near to his village and was known to him from before, hence he could identify him among the dacoits. 7. P.W. 7 (Ramyash Prasad) is the police official, who recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 1. He identified the appellant Nathuni Chaudhary among the miscreants. According to him, the appellant resides near to his village and was known to him from before, hence he could identify him among the dacoits. 7. P.W. 7 (Ramyash Prasad) is the police official, who recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant in the hospital on 21-1-1993 at about 9.30 p.m. He has not investigated the case. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined. 8. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that identification of the appellant was not possible because it was a dark night and month of January. He further submitted that according to the informant the age of appellant is 30-40 years whereas he was found 32 years of age. It was further submitted that from the order-sheet of the lower Court and the impugned judgment it appears that the petitioner has been in jail custody for 19 months. He is a young person and first offenders, hence a lenient view may be taken in award of sentence. 9. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the appellant was identified on the spot by three witnesses as referred to above. Since other accused were not identified, therefore, the case under Sec. 395, I.P.C. could not be proved and appellant was found guilty under Sec. 392, I.P.C. 10. From the discussions made above and after going through the evidences on record, I come to the conclusion that there is consistent and reliable evidence on the point of identification of the appellant among the miscreants who looted the informant and other P.Ws. on the road. Since the appellant was known to the informant and other P.Ws. from before being the resident of the neighbouring village, and the assaulted the informant and has removed his clothes, therefore, he must have come in the close proximity of the informant and there was every chance of his being identified. Therefore, the evidence on the point of identification is consistent and reliable. There was no reason for the informant and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to falsely implicate the appellant. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, the evidence on the point of identification is consistent and reliable. There was no reason for the informant and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to falsely implicate the appellant. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Since the appellant has been in jail custody for about 19 months and he is a young person and there is nothing on record to show that he has bad antecedent, therefore, this period of sentence from 3 years is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 12. With this modification in the judgment and order of the Court below the appeal fails.