V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is filed by accused nos. A-1 and A-2 against the judgment dated 11-06-1996 made in S. CNo. 142/1993 on the file of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 451 Part II IPC and under section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and in sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years on each count, which shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one k. Jagadish (P. W. 1) was living in a rented house at Subbalakshminagar along with his wife (P. W. 2) and two sons aged about 5 years and 5 months respectively. He was working as an Executive in Coastal Transport corporation, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the drivers of the coastal Transport Corporation and they were removed from the servke. On 16-10-1991, p. W. 1 left for his office at 9. 00 a. m. as usual and his wife along with two children remained in the house. At about 7. 00 p. m. his wife (P. W. 2) was watching the Television leaving front door ajar. A-1 and A-2 approached making enquiries about her husband. She stated that he had been away at the office. Then they asked her to ring up her husband and find out whether they should wait at his residence or they should go to his office. She tried to contact him over phone, but in vain. Thereupon, the accused askedher to get some water. When she moved towards kitchen to fetch water for them, A-1 followed her and caught hold of her and demanded her jewellery at the knife point, and in the meanwhile A-2held captive of her eldest son in the front room. Thereupon, the victim - P. W. 2 surrendered the gold chain of one tola and a pair of gold ear studs with love locks. A-1 threatened her to open the steel cupboard accordingly she opened it, then a-1 took cash of Rs. 5,800/-, gold ring (half a tola) and another pair of gold studs (half a tola ). Thereafter, A-1 fled away from the front door and A-2 fled away from rear door. A-1 threatened her to open the steel cupboard accordingly she opened it, then a-1 took cash of Rs. 5,800/-, gold ring (half a tola) and another pair of gold studs (half a tola ). Thereafter, A-1 fled away from the front door and A-2 fled away from rear door. Immediately thereupon, P. W. 2 went to the rear side building and informed the maidservant of the owner and one Srinivasa rao (son of the owner of the house ). The said srinivasa Rao called up P. W. 1 and informed him about the incident. Then P. W. 1 rushed to the house. P. W. 2 narrated him the way in which the robbery took place. P. W. 1 lodged a complaint (Ex. P-1) with the police. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No. 324/1991 (Ex. P-12 ). During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer seized gold ring produced by A-3 in the house of p. W. 3 at Gajuwaka. The Assistant commissioner of Police (P. W. 9) has arrested a-1on 11-02-1992 at 3. 00 p. m. near Kurupam market in the presence of the mediators and seized gold ear studs from his possession under the cover of mediators report. A-1 also made discovery statement and led the police party to the house of A-2 and thereupon p. W. 9 also arrested A-2 at his residence at dharmanagar and seized the other gold ear studs which were produced by him from his house under cover of mediators report on the same day evening at 5. 30 p. m. The property seized from A-1 and A-2 was identified by P. W. 2 in the identification proceedings held on 12-02-1992 at sankaramatham. On 15-02-1992, a test identification parade was held at the Central prison, Visakhapatnam where P. W. 2 identified A-1 and A-2. After completion of the investigation, P. W. 9 filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 458,392 r/w Section 397 IPC. ( 3 ) IN support of the case of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as P. W. 1 to p. W. 9 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-13 and m. Os. 1 to 4. On the defence side, none was examined and no document is marked. ( 3 ) IN support of the case of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as P. W. 1 to p. W. 9 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-13 and m. Os. 1 to 4. On the defence side, none was examined and no document is marked. ( 4 ) AFTER the trial, the learned Sessions judge held that A-1 and A-2 are guilty for the offence under Section 451 Part II and 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under each count. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants filed this Criminal appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in this case, P. W. 2 alone is the eye-witness and no one corroborated her evidence and the so-called knife is not recovered. Identification parade was held after 4 moths of the occurrence of the crime and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, they are entitled for the acquittal The learned Counsel further submitted that since the accused are the total strangers, P. W. 2 could not have identified them after a period of four months, and therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt on this count also. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, robbery took place on 16-10-1991 at about ( 7 ) 00 p. m. When the accused enquired P. W. 2 about her husband (P. W. 1), she stated that he had been to office and then they have asked her to find out from him whether they should wait for him there or they should go to his office. Then she tried to contact him over phone but in vain. Later on, they have asked her to get drinking water she moved towards kitchen to fetch water, A-l followed her and caught hold of her hand and placed knife at her and in the meantime, A-2 held captive of her eldest son in the front room and placed the knife at him, A-l took her gold chain and two ear ornaments (jumkalu) and A-l forced her to open the steel almirah. He took away gold ring, two more ear ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,800/ -. He took away gold ring, two more ear ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,800/ -. After robbery, A-2 sneaked away from the rear side of the house and A-l from the front door. She immediately informed the same to the maidservant and son of the owner of the house. On receipt of information about the robbery in his house, P. W. 1 rushed to the house and gave a complaint (Ex. P-1) to the police. In the complaint (Ex. P-1) itself the description of the two persons has been given stating that they are aged about 22 or 23 years, based on which a crime in 324/1991 was registered and issued FIR (Ex. P-12 ). It is also described in the FIR that the accused persons are in the age group of 23 to 24 years, wore full pants and bush shirts and one is tall and another is short in height, lean built, spoke in Telugu. The accused were arrested on 11-02-1992 and immediately within 3 days test identification parade was held on the request of the police by the IV Metropolitan magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Central Prison, visakhapatnam where P. W. 2 has identified a-l and A-2. Test Identification Parade proceedings is marked as Ex. P-11. 7. The ornaments recovered from the accused on 11-02-1992 were also identified by P. W. 2 on 12-02-1992. Except P. W. 2, no one witnessed the commission of robbery and she alone is the victim and eye-witness and without any loss of time, she has taken action by informing the same to the maidservant and son of the owner of the house. On information about burglary in his house, P. W. 1 immediately rushed to the house and thereafter he gave a police complaint (Ex. P-1 ). The evidence of P. W. 2 is corroborated by P. W. 1 and the stolen property was recovered in the presence of the mediators and P. W. 2 identified the accused in the test identification parade. The accused trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and committed robbery, and therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the accused is guilty under Section 451 Part II and also under Section 392 IPC. The accused trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and committed robbery, and therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the accused is guilty under Section 451 Part II and also under Section 392 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 397 IPC is concerned, it is described the robbery took place at the knife point, but it is not described the size of the knife and whether it was deadly weapon. In the absence of the description of the knife and recovery of the knife, it cannot be said that the accused persons used deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the offence and also the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused have used deadly weapons at the time of the robbery and mere prossession of knife cannot be said that they have committed the robbery by using the deadly weapon, and therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt under Section 397 IPC. ( 8 ) 1 hold that A-l and A-2 are entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 397 ipc and they are accordingly acquitted. ( 9 ) IN so far as the sentences under Sec. 451 part II and 392 are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the accused is reduced from 7 years to 4 years for each count, which shall run concurrently. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in part.