( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vijaya Kumar, Counsel representing Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, counsel representing the appellants-A-1 to a-3 and Sri. Mohd. Osman Shaheed, additional public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) SRI Vijaya Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-A-1 to A-3 would contend that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and even as per the evidence of P. W. 1, in the identification she identified A-1 only, and in the Court she had deposed that she was able to identify the other accused also, and hence, the same cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also would submit that as far as the identification of gold chain is concerned, the identification proceedings were conducted by Balagangadhar Reddy-Village administrative Officer, and the said person was not examined, and hence, the connecting link is missing, and in view of the same, the appellants are entitled for an acquittal. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would contend that when there is a clear direct evidence available on record viz. , the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, identifying the accused as such, the mere discrepancy which had crept in, in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 may not be of any serious consequence, and in the light of the same, the non-examination of Balagangadhar reddy would not in any way alter the situation, and hence, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Judge are to be confirmed. ( 4 ) A-1 to A-3 are the appellants and these accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years each, and A-1 and A-2 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and a-3 was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. ( 5 ) THE graveman of the charge against a-1 to A-3 is that on the intervening right of 25/26-10-1998 at 2. 00 a. m. , these accused entered into the house of one Suvarnamala, bearing D. No. 51/964/a-2, Seetharam Nagar, kurnool, and threatened her with knives, and robbed gold chain from her, and also took away cash of Rs. 2,000/- from almairah and caused injury on her right hand. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is as hereunder: a-1 is a resident of Ananthapur District. 2,000/- from almairah and caused injury on her right hand. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is as hereunder: a-1 is a resident of Ananthapur District. A-2 and A-3 are the residents of Chitradurga district of Karnataka State. The defacto- complainant-Survarnamala (P. W. 1) and her daughter-Vishnupriya (P. W. 2) are the residents of Seetharam Nagar Kurnool Town. On the intervening night of 25/26-10-1998 p. Ws. 1 and2 were sleeping in their house by closing the doors. At about 2. 00 a. m. , A-1 to a-3 removed the window grill of the house, and committed house breaking in order to commit robbery, and entered into the bed room of P. W. 1, and one of the accused attempted to snatch the gold chain from the neck of P. W. 2, who raised an alarm. Then, p. W. 1 got up and saw A-1 to A-3 armed with knives, and they attempted to snatch the gold chain from P. W. 1, while taking the chain, the knife of one of the accused caused injury to her on her right hand. P. W. 1 handed over her gold chain to the accused. They also committed theft of cash of Rs. 2,000/- from the almairah in the bed room. On 26-10-1998 at about 10. 00 a. m. , suvarnamala went to Kurnool IV Town Police station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint to p. W. 4-Sub-lnspector of Police, and he registered the same as a case in Crime no. 142 of 1998 under Section 394 IPC and submitted the Ex. P-2-express FIR to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. On 25-11-1998 at 8. 45 a. m. , P. W. 6- inspector of Police, C. C. S Kurnool, received information about the movements of dacoits who were taking shelter nearby Madhavaram, and went to Madhavaram. He secured panchayatdars from Madhavaram and reached Udaya Theatre at 9. 45 a. m. , P. W. 7- c. l. of Police, Peapully also accompanied with him. P. W. 6 arrested six persons and prepared separate arrest and mahajars at tungabhadra Railway station in the presence of panchayatdars and brought back them to kurnool. The Inspector of Police took A-1 and others to Tungabhadra Railway station and where he arrested A-2 and A-3 and seized the stolen gold chain from the possession of A-3. On 02-12-1998 at 2. The Inspector of Police took A-1 and others to Tungabhadra Railway station and where he arrested A-2 and A-3 and seized the stolen gold chain from the possession of A-3. On 02-12-1998 at 2. 00 p. m. Sri Balagangadhar Reddy-V. A. O. , of kurnool conducted identification proceedings for identification of gold chain and P. W. 1 identified the same. On 18-12-1998 P. W. 5- principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool held identification parade of accused in the Office of the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kurnool and p. Ws. 1 and 2 identified A-1 to A-3. After completion of the investigation, P. W. 6- inspector of Police, Kurnool filed the charge- sheet. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-5 and M. O. 1. On behalf of the defence Ex. D-1-Contradiction in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 1 was marked. ( 7 ) THE defence of the accused is one of total denial. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge had dealt with the evidence available on record in detail and had recorded findings. P. W. 1 deposed that she participated in the identification proceedings conducted by the Magistrate and she identified all the three culprits before the Magistrate. Though P. W. 1 deposed that she identified A-1 to A-3 before the Magistrate, no doubt, she identified A-1 only. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 had been discussed at length. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of P. W. 5-Principal Junior Civil judge, Nandikotkur, and the investigating officers-P. Ws. 4, 6 and 7 also had been discussed at length. P. W. 3-V. A. O. , had deposed about the drafting of panchanama and the recovery of stolen gold ornaments. No doubt, this witness was declared hostile after he was examined up to some extent. However, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 had been discussed at length by the learned judge, and findings had been recorded that this identification of the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved, merely, on the ground that these witnesses were unable to identify all the accused, during the course of identification parade. However, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 had been discussed at length by the learned judge, and findings had been recorded that this identification of the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved, merely, on the ground that these witnesses were unable to identify all the accused, during the course of identification parade. It is pertinent to note that there is evidence of at least one witness relating to the participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, on the fateful day. ( 9 ) IN the light of the cogent and convincing reasons recorded on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7, Exs. P-1 to P-5, and the contradiction-Ex. D-1 marked in the 161 cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 1, and also M. O. 1, this Court is of the opinion that there are no compelling reasons to take a different opinion, and hence, the findings are hereby confirmed and the conviction also is hereby confirmed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, kurnool, on 15-10-2001 in Sessions Case no. 15 of 2000 against the appellants-A-1 to a-3 for the offence punishable under section 394 IPC is hereby confirmed. But, however, the sentence is modified as hereunder: the sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years each for the offence under Section 394 IPC is modified and reduced to a period of three years each. But, however, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of fine as against the appellants a-1 to A-3 is hereby set aside it is also brought to the notice of this Court that in all probability, the accused might have already undergone the period of three years if that is so, on calculation of the period in accordance with law, the appellants-A-1 to a-3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they had already undergone the afore said modified sentence except this modification, in all other respects, the findings of the learned Juage are hereby confirmed the Criminal Appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification