JUDGMENT:---Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 25th November, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 160 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo seven years R.I. under section 392/397 I.P.C. 2.In short, the prosecution case runs as under : The informant-victim Mohandas Shettygar P.W. 1 at the time of the incident, was working as a helper in Mahendra and Mahendra Company. On 25th October 1991, he had proceeded for his duties at about 7.30 a.m. At about 5 p.m. he was relieved from his duties, came up to Mangatram petrol pump on a bus; and thereafter at about 5.45 p.m. when he was proceeding on foot to his house on Pratap Nagar Road, the appellant and co-accused Laddu both armed with knives emerged. They pointed their knives on his neck and stomach. The appellant pulled out his chain. Thereafter, they ran away. 3.After being robbed, the informant victim Mohandas Shettygar P.W. 1 proceeded to Bhandup Police Station where he lodged his F.I.R. the same day at 7.10 p.m. It was recorded by P.S.I. Baburao Deshmukh P.W. 4. It is pertinent to point out that in the F.I.R. the appellant and co-accused Laddu are named. 4.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Baburao Deshmukh. On 2nd November, 1991 he arrested the appellant in the presence of two public panchas out of whom, one namely Balasaheb Potvade P.W. 3 has been examined. The appellant during interrogation informed that he would get the chain which he had sold to his friend, recovered. The said information was recorded under a panchanama. Thereafter, P.S.I. Baburao Deshmukh P.W. 4 along with public panchas, police personnel and the appellant proceeded in a van. When the van reached in front of K.E.M. Hospital the appellant asked that it be stopped. All of them got down from the van. Thereafter, the appellant led them to the third floor of Gavvala Building. One Rajesh Naik P.W. 2 opended the door. Some conversation between the appellant and Rajesh Naik took place. Thereafter, Rajesh Naik produced the looted chain which was seized under a panchanama. After completing the investigation, P.S.I. Deshmukh submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of P.S.I. Deshmukh shows that co-accused Laddu was absconding and inspite of his best efforts could not be arrested. Thereafter, Rajesh Naik produced the looted chain which was seized under a panchanama. After completing the investigation, P.S.I. Deshmukh submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of P.S.I. Deshmukh shows that co-accused Laddu was absconding and inspite of his best efforts could not be arrested. 5.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for offences punishable under sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of denial. During trial, in all the prosecution examined four witnesses. The informant victim Mohandas Shettygar who was the only eye-witness of the incident gave occular account. The three other witnesses were :- Rajesh Naik P.W. 2 (the person to whom the appellant had sold the looted chain) : P.W. 3 Balasaheb Potvade (public panch of recovery of the chain from the residence of Rajesh Naik P.W. 2); and P.S.I. Baburao Deshmukh P.W. 3 (the Investigating Officer). In defence, one witness was examined. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. Hence, this appeal. 6.We have heard Ms. Kiran Gupta for the appellant and Mr. I.S. Thakur 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 statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and the impugned judgment. After, the gravest circumspection, we are of the judgment that there is no merit in this appeal. The main plank of the prosecution evidence on which the conviction of the appellant is founded, is the evidence of the informant victim Mohandas Shettygar P.W. 1. As mentioned in para 2, on the date of the incident at about 5.45 p.m. while returning from Mahendra and Mahendra Company to his house, when he had reached Pratap Nagar Road, the appellant and co-accused Laddu both armed with knives emerged. They pointed their knives towards his neck and stomach and thereafter, the appellant relieved him of his chain. We have gone through the statement of the informant - victim and we find it implicitly reliable. The informant-victim nominated the appellant in his said statement. They pointed their knives towards his neck and stomach and thereafter, the appellant relieved him of his chain. We have gone through the statement of the informant - victim and we find it implicitly reliable. The informant-victim nominated the appellant in his said statement. Although, he was subjected to a some cross-examination but, nothing could be extracted therefrom which would probablise his falsely nominating the appellant. He is a wholly independent witness who had no grudge or malice against the appellant. In our view, in the absence of the same, he would not have falsely named the appellant; both in his F.I.R. and in his statement in the trial Court. In our view, his statement has a ring of truth and has been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge. 7.Assurance to the statement of the informant- victim is forthcoming by the circumstance that the F.I.R. of the incident wherein the appellant and his associate co-accused Laddu are named, was lodged by him within 11/2 hours of the incident taking place i.e. the same day at 7.10 p.m. In the said F.I.R. the manner of the incident as furnished by informant victim in his statement in the trial Court has been set out. Further assurance is lent to the prosecution case by the circumstance that on 9th November, 1991 (about two weeks after the incident) on the pointing out of the appellant, in the presence of public panch Balasaheb Potvade P.W. 3, the Investigating Officer P.S.I. Deshmukh P.W. 4, recovered the looted chain from the residence of Rajesh Naik P.W. 2 situated on the third floor of Gavvala Building on L.B.S. Marg near K.E.M. Hospital. Evidence of Rajesh Naik P.W. 2 shows that sometimes in October, 1991 the appellant came to him and told him that he was in need of money as he wanted to get his mother operated. He asked him to take the chain which he was carrying and give him money. Consequently, he (Rajesh Naik) took the chain, give him Rs. 2300/-. His further evidence is that on 9th November, 1991 the appellant in the presence of public panchas and police, came to his residence and pursuant to some conversation between him and the appellant, he handed over the chain to the police. He categorically stated that it was the same chain which the appellant had handed over to him. 2300/-. His further evidence is that on 9th November, 1991 the appellant in the presence of public panchas and police, came to his residence and pursuant to some conversation between him and the appellant, he handed over the chain to the police. He categorically stated that it was the same chain which the appellant had handed over to him. Regarding the recovery of the chain, evidence of Rajesh Naik is corroborated by that of public panch Balasaheb Potvade P.W. 3 and the Investigating Officer P.S.I. Deshmukh P.W. 4. The evidence also shows that during the course of interrogation, the appellant admitted that he could get the looted chain recovered. We have gone through the evidence of Rajesh Naik, P.W. 2, Balasaheb Potvade P.W. 3 and P.S.I. Baburao Deshmukh P.W. 4 and we find the same to be implicitly reliable. Although these three witnesses were subjected to cross-examinations but nothing could be extracted therefrom which would dis-credit their testimony. All of them are wholly independent witnesses, having no rancour or grudge against the appellant. In our view, in the absence of the same, they would not have falsely implicated the appellant. 8.For the said reasons, in our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in finding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 392/397 I.P.C. Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo seven years R.I. which is the minimum sentence for the offence under section 397 I.P.C. In such a situation, there can be no question of reducing the sentence of the appellant. 9.In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 392/297 I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. -----