JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The present appellant along with two others face trial for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 364, 367 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short Indian Penal Code) and Section 3(2)(e)(iii) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners' Act. The trial court found all the three guilty of the charged offences and imposed life sentence for the offences relatable to 120-B, Sections 364, 367, 394 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 394 read with Section 34 in respect of another robbery (according to the prosecution there were two robberies). So far as the offence relatable to the Foreigners' Act is concerned he was directed to undergo five years imprisonment. The High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 470/1994 did not find anything wrong with the judgment of the trial court to warrant interference except acquit all the accused persons for the second alleged robbery. It is of significance that A1 and A2 preferred appeals before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.996/99 and Criminal Appeal No. 512/2000. Their appeals were allowed. However, in the judgment the special circumstances relatable to the present appellant were highlighted. These circumstances were noted by the trial court and the High Court to additionally fasten guilt on the appellant. 3. Mr. S. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae submitted that so far as factual scenario is concerned, the acquitted accused persons and the present appellant stand on the same footing. The two circumstances which according to the trial court and the High Court put the appellant on a different platform are: (1) the finger print found in the taxi which was robbed and (2) the factum of the appellant selling wrist watch of the deceased as evidenced by PW-14. These distinctions have been noted by this Court in the other two Criminal Appeals. As the case rests on circumstantial evidence, it was submitted that the two circumstances do not make the cases of the appellants who have been acquitted different and it is difficult to separate the appellants' case from their case. At the most according to him the offence may be under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and not a case covered by Section 302 Indian Penal Code. At the most according to him the offence may be under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and not a case covered by Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. 4. We have gone through the evidence which has been considered by the trial court and the High Court and the order passed by this Court in the two criminal appeals filed by the co-accused. We find that so far as the appellants' case is concerned the same stands on a different footing and the evidence on record clearly establishes his guilt. We do not find anything infirm in the reasonings to warrant our interference. The appeal is dismissed.