Judgment 1. Both appellants have been convicted under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28-5-1992 at 8.15 P.M. when the informant, Sudipta Roy, P.W. 2 was returning by his Maruti Car bearing number BR 01-0775C of white colour from his clinic to his residence and turned his aforesaid car towards cemetery road, a boy aged about 22 years stopped his car by signalling his hand and asked him whether he was Dr. Mitra from whom he wanted to get his mother examined. It has been alleged that informant replied that he is not Doctor Mittra and he resides at some distance from there. Thereafter, the said boy asked him (informant) to give the telephone number of Doctor Mittraa. The informant gave telephone number of Doctor Mittra to that boy and he noted the name on his palm. Thereafter, the informant went to his house. It is further alleged that when he reached his house, the same boy at about 9 P.M. came at his residence and asked about Doctor Mittra and he replied that Doctor Mittra has not returned as yet and the boy returned back. But again at 9.30 P.M. he came at the residence of the informant and in weeping voice requested the informant to see his ill mother who was lying unconscious at Suresh Colony. On the request made by the boy, the informant along with him on his car proceeded for examining his mother. When the informant reached at distance of about 200 yards, an other boy stopped his car and asked the reason of such delay and requested the informant to proceed quickly. He also set inside the vehicle. When they reached near 51/2. Columbas college, after some while, one of the boys took out country made revolver from his own possession and got the car stopped at the point of revolver aiming on the head of the informant. There were two boys standing there from before got inside the car and thereafter one of the four boys sat near the steering of the car but the other boys sat in front side and got the informant seated in the back seat of the car. There were two boys standing there from before got inside the car and thereafter one of the four boys sat near the steering of the car but the other boys sat in front side and got the informant seated in the back seat of the car. They asked the informant at the point of revolver to keep quiet otherwise they will do away with the life of the informant and thereafter all the said boys proceeded with the car on the road leading to Chanha Church turning from main road and began to assault the informant. It has been alleged that one boy made effort to press the neck of the informant by the chain of cycle and snatched his purse containing a sum of Rs. 350.00 , one ring with diamond and gold worth about Rs. 3000.00 , one HMT watch was worth Rupees 1000.00 . The further case of the prosecution is that the said boys stopped the car after about 20-25 minutes on the said road at some place and opened the gate of the car and began to assault the informant by pressing his neck with the chain but the informant escaped from there and fell down in a mud-ditch and hid himself. It is further alleged that they considered the informant to be unconscious and fled away from there. It is alleged that the informant was lying there for a period of ten minutes and thereafter the informant began to return on fort to Hazaribagh, but in the way Ram Sewak Singh P.W. 5 well acquainted with the informant, reached on the road in Chanha Village. The informant narrated the incident to him and his son. They brought the informant to Hazaribagh. It has been further alleged that the miscreants were aged about 22 years and were of height group of 5 ft. 7 inches of fair complexion having beard grown up to a little extent. It has been stated that he narrated about the description of the miscreants in details. On the basis of the fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and registered under Sec. 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and registered under Sec. 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution witnesses had examined altogether nine witnesses including the informant, P.W. 2. P.W. 1 Parth Mehta had proved Fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked Ext. 1, P.W. 2 Dr. Sudipta Roy is informant himself P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Jaiswal has proved his signature on his statement given before the Magistrate concerned under Sec. 164, Cr. P.C. which are Exts. 2 and 3 respectively. P.W. 4 Bijay Kumar has proved his statement recorded before the Magistrate concerned which was marked Ext. 4 P.W. 5 is Ram Sewak Singh. P.W. 6 is Parshuram who has proved his injury report which is marked as Exts. 5. P.W. 8 Chandrika Ram who was judicial Magistrate, Proved T.I. chart which was marked Ext. 6. Moti Ram P.W. 8 and Tribani Kumar Roy P.W. 9 who are formal witnesses, have proved formal F.I.R. and fardbeyan which were marked Exts. 7 and 8 respectively. 4. P.W. 2 informant, Dr. Sudipta Roy has stated in his deposition that on 25-8-1992 at about 8.15 P.M. he was returning from his clinic and reached near cemetery road, one young boy stopped his vehicle (Maruti car) bearing No. BR 01-0775 C of white colour and asked him whether he is Dr. Mitra. He replied that he is not Doctor Mittra, he informed them that said Dr. Mittra had gone to the clinic and he will return late as he had to attend a party. He has further stated that miscreant asked him about the telephone number of Doctor Mittra and said miscreant noted the same on his palm. It has also been stated that the said young boy again came at 9 P.M. and asked whether Doctor Mitra had returned or not upon which he replied that he had not returned. It has further been stated that after half an hour the said boy again came to his house and said that his ill mother had became unconscious. He requested him to see his ill mother. It has further been stated that after half an hour the said boy again came to his house and said that his ill mother had became unconscious. He requested him to see his ill mother. Thereafter the informant got him seated in the car and proceeded towards his residence, but in the way the other young boys stopped the car and enquired from him why such delay has happened in getting a doctor and thereafter he sat in his back seat of the car. It has also been stated that one young boy put the revolver on the head of the informant and asked him to proceed without raising any alarm and stopped the said vehicle near the St. Columbas College where two other young boys standing there also sat in the vehicle. Thereafter he was seated in the back of the car and one of the boyds began to drive the car. It has also been stated that the said young boy snatched HMT watch worth Rs. 1000.00 ring worth Rs. 3000, purse containing Rs. 350.00 from his possession and he was given threat to do away with his life. One of them also made effort to press the neck of the informant with cycle chain and began to assault with the butt of the revolver due to which the informant became unconscious. But when the said vehicle reached at a place near Chanhachur it was stopped. The informant somehow managed to jump out of the vehicle and fell down in a mud ditch and thereafter the young boys fled away with the said vehicle of the informant but the informant after lapse of 15 minutes he returned to Chanha village where he met with Ram Sewak Singh, P.W. 5, who is well acquainted with him and narrated the whole story to him. The P.W. 5 sent him through his son to his residence on motorcycle. He has also narrated the whole story to Dr. Mittra on his residence and he brought him to the hospital where he was medically examined and was given first aid. He has also stated that T.I. Parada was held and he identified the accused persons. 5. P.Ws. 1 and 5 Parath Mehta and Ram Sewak Singh have stated that the informant narrated about the occurrence and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated by the informant. 6. He has also stated that T.I. Parada was held and he identified the accused persons. 5. P.Ws. 1 and 5 Parath Mehta and Ram Sewak Singh have stated that the informant narrated about the occurrence and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated by the informant. 6. P. W. 6 Dr. Parshuram Bharati has stated that on 28-5-1992 he was posted as CAS at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and examined Dr. Sudipta Roy, informant on 28-5-1992 at about 11.20 p.m. and found the following injuries. (i) The whole body was smeared with mud and bleeding from both nostrils multiple echmosis of about 1/2" size into to parelled rows all around the middle of neck. (ii) Lacerated wounds of 2" x 1/4" on scalp on back sides of area. (iii) Swelling of 2" x 2" on occipital region. (iv) Abrasion 6" x 3" above right elbow in both sides of area. (v) Multiple abrasions of varying sizes over right shoulder. (vi) abrasion of 1" x 1" size of left palm. It has been stated that the nature of injuries was simple caused within six hours. 7. P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Jaiswal who has given statement, Ext-3 before the magistrate under Sec. 164, Cr. P.C. 8. P.W. 7 is Chandrika Ram who was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Hazaribagh on 9-7-1992 and conducted T. I. Parade on the aforesaid date by the order of the C.O.M. Hazaribagh by observing all formalities and rules. He stated that he conducted T.I.P. by mixing 36 persons of the same height and complexion. He has further stated that the informant, Dr. Sudipta Roy identified the accused Sanjay Rakshit and he has also stated that informant identified one person who had no concern with the case. P.W. 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. 8A. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the veracity of the identification made by P.W. 2 has become doubtful since he wrongly identified one person who had no concern with the case. Thus his identification should not be relied upon. It has also been contended that Sanjay Rakshit was having deep scar marked near his eye brow and while conducting T. I. Parade such person with similar mark was not mixed with the appellants. On this point the Court below had already given benefit of doubt to one accused Ariff Hussain, since the Court found distinct mark on his fore-head. It has also been contended that Sanjay Rakshit was having deep scar marked near his eye brow and while conducting T. I. Parade such person with similar mark was not mixed with the appellants. On this point the Court below had already given benefit of doubt to one accused Ariff Hussain, since the Court found distinct mark on his fore-head. In this connection learned counsel has relied on a decision in the case of Wakil Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1392 : (1981 Cri LJ 1014). It appears that the case was registered against the unknown persons and the informant is sole witness to the occurrence and he is the most natural and competent witness of the occurrence. He also identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 7 after following the formalities. In the T.I. Parade, informant identified four persons including these two appellants. P.W. 7 who held T.I. Parade has testified the T.I. Chart and stated that he observed all formalities and rules in T.I. Parade. He mixed other persons of same height and same age group and also similar complexion with four suspects. According to him, the informant identified four persons. In his cross examination he has stated that the informant identified a Yogndra who had no concern with the case. On the submission of learned counsel regarding non-mixing of persons with distinct mark similar to the alleged accused, it appears that the Court below has already given benefit of doubt to one accused who was identified by the informant in the T.I. chart since there was distinct mark on his forehead. But in the case of Sanjay Rakshit, the Court below also observed that since the scar mark found on the face of the appellant Sanjay Rakshit was not so distinct so as to demarcate at the first glance itself from others, therefore, the ground of non-inclusion or mixing of the persons having scar mark does not vitiate the T.I. Parade conducted by the P.W. 7 Judicial magistrate. The identification of this appellant by P.W. 2 in the T.I. Parade cannot be thrown out only on this ground. The identification of this appellant by P.W. 2 in the T.I. Parade cannot be thrown out only on this ground. Even the ground taken by the learned counsel is that the informant identified one wrong person namely Yogendra and as such his veracity is doubtful and is not applicable in this case since there were two set-of miscreants one on rear seat and some other on front seat and the possibility of identification of miscreants seated on rear seat was more than those on front. Since it is admitted that the appellant remained with the informant in the car for quite sometime as such he could identify the appellant. Appellant Sanjay Rakshit and Pranay Kumar were having revolvers in his hands and they snatched his gold chain, purse, diamond studded, gold ring, HMT watch of the informant. In view of the specific overt-act committed by them it was unlikely to miss them. In that view of the matter the Court below has rightly convicted the appellants of the offence punishable under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code. I find no infirmity in the order and judgment passed by the Court. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.