A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 30-7-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 45/1997 confirming an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Puri in g. R. Case No. 1235 of 1996 (Trial No. 886of 1997) is impugned in this case. ( 2 ) ON the basis of an F. I. R. filed by P. W. 1, the criminal action was set to motion. It is alleged in the F. I. R. that on 15-9-1996 at about 2 p. m. , all the three petitioners came to the house of informant on a Rajdoot motorcycle and on the point of a Bhujali, threatened the informant's father, P. W. 2, that if he would not part with a sum of Rs. 5000/-, they would kill his son, P. W. 1. Out of fear, p. W. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioners. It is further alleged in the FIR that p. W. 3, who happens to be the maternal uncle of P. W. 1, was present at the time of occurrence and was an eye-witness of the entire occurrence. On the basis of the said fir, G. R. Case No. 1235 of 1996 was registered in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Puri. ( 3 ) TO substantiate the case, prosecution examined four witnesses and exhibited four documents marked Exts. 1 to 4. ( 4 ) THE plea of the defence is of complete denial and no witness was examined on its behalf. ( 5 ) AFTER discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners for commission of an offence under Section 392, I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to undergo further R. I. for six months. The learned appellate Court after scrutinizing the evidence also confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal as the same had no merit. The present Revision has been filed against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) MR. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, forcefully argued that there was not a single independent witness to support the prosecution case. According to him, p. Ws. The present Revision has been filed against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) MR. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, forcefully argued that there was not a single independent witness to support the prosecution case. According to him, p. Ws. 1 and 2 are father and son. P. W. 4 was the Officer-in-charge. P. W. 3 was the only independent witness, who had denied the entire incident. According to P. W. 3, he had not seen the occurrence, but had heard about the same. Mr. Dhal forcefully submitted that the incident took place in the heart of Puri Town at 2 p. m. in broad day light. It is rather improbable that in mid-day no independent witness had seen the occurrence. According to him, the allegations are false and out of previous enmity, such a false story has been made out against the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Standing counsel on verification of the materials available fairly conceded that so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely, Dinabandhu mohapatra and Jitendra Kumar Mohanty are concerned, no overt acts have been attributed to them. But then, so far as petitioner No. 3, Budhia Mohapatra is concerned, there is specific allegation that he was present with the Bhujali and had threatenend the informant's father P. W. 2 to part with Rs. 5. 000/ -. It is also submitted that Budhia Mohapatra put the Bhujali at the neck of P. W. 1 and after receiving Rs. 2. 000/- from P. W. 2, fled away. According to learned Addl. Standing Counsel, the involvement of Budhia cannot be disbelieved on any account. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I perused the materials available. P. W. 3, who was the only outsider said to have been present at the time of occurrence had completely given a goby to the prosecution case in spite of the fact that he was cross-examined at length. The prosecution has not pointed out any dent in the veracity of his statement. The other witnesses are only P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are father and son. Their evidence also does not attribute any overt act so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, except a bare allegation that they were present at the time of occurrence. Their involvement in the alleged crime is doubtful. The other witnesses are only P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are father and son. Their evidence also does not attribute any overt act so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, except a bare allegation that they were present at the time of occurrence. Their involvement in the alleged crime is doubtful. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the case against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts and acquit them of the charge under Section 392, I. P. C. But then, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 so far as petitioner No. 3 (Budhia) is concerned, is consistent. It is alleged that he had threatened to kill P. W. 1 and put the Bhujali at his neck. Thus according to me, the materials on record, establish beyond all reason- able doubts that petitioner No. 3 Budhia mohapatra committed robbery of Rs. 2,000/- by putting P. W. 1 to instant fear of death. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part. The order of conviction and sentence under Section 392, I. P. C. passed against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. ( 11 ) I confirm the conviction of petitioner no. 3, Budhia Mohapatra under Section 392, i. P. C. Taking a cumulative assessment of the facts and circumstances, however, I modify the sentence and direct that petitioner No. 3, Budhia Mohapatra shall undergo R. I. for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- (Five thousand), in default to undergo R. I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 2. 000/- (Two thousand) shall be paid to the informant. The period undergone be set off under Section 428, Cr. P. C. Petition partly allowed.