Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its Judgment and order dated 06.08.2002, in Sessions Case No. 41/2002, convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Bajrang Singh @ Guddu as under:- Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment 397, IPC To seven years rigorous imprisonment. 394, IPC To seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that PW. 9 Manju Rao wife of Shri Mahendra Kumar lodged a written report (Exhibit P-5) at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that she resides at Plot No. 142-A, Shakti Nagar, Sodala. On 28.02.1997 at about 8.30 PM to 9.00 PM. three miscreants entered in her house. The description of the miscreants was mentioned in the report. They were having knives in their hands. It was alleged that on the tips of knives they committed robbery in her house and ran away. On the basis of this information, the police registered FIR No. 115/97 under Section 394, IPC and started investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against three accused-persons, namely Kan Singh, Suraj Mal and the present accused-appellant Bajrang Singh, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur, under Sections 394 and 397, IPC, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. During trial of the case, the accused-appellant Bajrang Singh absconded, therefore, vide order dated 30.03.2000 he was declared absconded and standing warrant was issued and trial commenced against remaining two accused-persons, namely Kan Singh and Suraj Mal. The Special Judge, Sati Niwaran, Rajasthan, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 129/1998, vide its Judgment and order dated 15.05.2000, acquitted the accused-persons, namely, Kan Singh and Suraj Mal. The accused-appellant Bajrang Singh was arrested and he was tried separately. He was charged with the offence under Sections 394 and 397, IPC. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The accused-appellant Bajrang Singh was arrested and he was tried separately. He was charged with the offence under Sections 394 and 397, IPC. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, CrPC, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecution. No evidence was produced in defence. 4. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above. 5. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant contended that after arrest of the accused-appellant the identification parade was not conducted and in absence of identification parade he could not have been convicted for the above offences. He also contended that in the case of co-accused Kan Singh and Suraj Mal an identification parade was conducted but still both were acquitted by the trial Court. In the present case it is clear from the statement of PW. 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer, that no identification parade was conducted. He further contended that the recovery of the gold-ornament (rakhdi) and Jeep, alleged to have been used in the offence, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt as both the independent witnesses, PW. 1 Satya Narain and PW. 2 Ram Dhan, have been declared hostile by the prosecution and only on the basis of the statement of PW. 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer, the conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be based. He lastly contended that the co-accused Kan Singh and Suraj Mal, both, have been acquitted, therefore, the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the present accused-appellant as the case of all the three accused-persons was similar. .6. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Paniya vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 141. 2. Ghurelal & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) 436. 3. Bahadur Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 766. 4. Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. vs. State of M .P., 2005 AIAR (Criminal) 43. 5. State of Rajasthan vs. Khuma, 1988 (2) WLN 426. 6. Mala vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) RCrD 311 (Raj.) 7. Wakil Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 . 7. 4. Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. vs. State of M .P., 2005 AIAR (Criminal) 43. 5. State of Rajasthan vs. Khuma, 1988 (2) WLN 426. 6. Mala vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) RCrD 311 (Raj.) 7. Wakil Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 . 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there is sufficient evidence available on the record against the accused-appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, therefore, no interference is called for of this Court in this appeal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and minutely scanned the impugned Judgment and order as well as the record of the trial Court. 9. The learned trial Court, in its Judgment and order dated 06.08.2002 recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence available on the record that the recovery of gold-ornament and Jeep, at the instance of the present accused-appellant and on the basis of his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is proved from the prosecution evidence including the evidence of PW. 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer. The written report (Exhibit P-5), site-plan (Exhibit P-7) and arrest-memo (Exhibit P-9) have been proved in the present case by PW. 9 Manju Rao and other witnesses PW. 4 Vikas Khandelwal and PW. 8 Kanahiya Lal. The accused appellant was arrested on 30.07.1998 vide arrest-memo (Exhibit P-9) and he gave an information to Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about possession of gold-ornament i.e., rakhdi and the said information was reduced in writing by the Investigating Officer on 04.08.1998 vide Exhibit P-19 and in respect of Jeep on 05.08.1998 vide Exhibit P-20. In pursuance of the information Exhibit P-19 the gold-ornament was recovered on 04.08.1998 vide Seizure-memo Exhibit P-1 and Jeep was also recovered on 06.08.1998 vide Exhibit P-13, seizure-memo. PW . 9 Manju Rao and PW . 10 Shanti Devi have identified the gold-ornament recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Bajrang Singh. PW . 9 Manju Rao and PW . 10 Shanti Devi have identified the accused-appellant during the course of their statements recorded before the Court. Both have stated that the accused-appellant Bajrang Singh, who is present in the Court, was involved in robbery and he inflicted injuries on their person. PW . 9 Manju Rao and PW . 10 Shanti Devi have identified the accused-appellant during the course of their statements recorded before the Court. Both have stated that the accused-appellant Bajrang Singh, who is present in the Court, was involved in robbery and he inflicted injuries on their person. The injury reports Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-10 show that injuries were inflicted by sharp-edged weapons on the persons of PW . 9 Manju Rao and PW . 10 Shanti Devi. From these injury reports it is clear that the accused used deadly weapon i.e., knife, which is corroborated with the medical report that the injuries were inflicted by sharp-edged weapon also. These injuries have been proved by the medical officer. The identification of gold-ornament rakhdi was also conducted in presence of PW . 13 Sushil Kumar Sharma, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, and the same is also proved from the statement of PW . 9 Manju Rao, PW . 10 Shanti Devi and PW . 13 Sushil Kumar Sharma, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. No doubt, both independent witnesses, PW . 1 Satya Narain and PW . 2 Ram Dhan, have been declared hostile but merely on that basis it cannot be said that the recovery of gold-ornament and the Jeep, becomes doubtful. The recovery of ornament is proved from the statement of other prosecution witnesses including the statement of PW . 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer, and, on careful examining his statement, I find it trustworthy and sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant. 10. So far as the acquittal of two co-accused-persons, namely, Kan Singh and Suraj Mal, is concerned, although the Judgment dated 15.05.2000 passed in their case has not been exhibited in the present case but the same is available in the file of the trial Court, therefore, I have examined that Judgment in the light of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and from the perusal of the said Judgment it appears that there was no recovery of any gold-ornament at the instance of co-accused Kan Singh and Suraj Mal, whereas in the present case there is an information in respect of gold-ornament and in pursuance of it, the recovery has also been made and the same has been proved, as discussed above. In these circumstances I find that the case of the present accused-appellant is distinguishable with the case of other co-accused persons. 11. So far as the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, as referred above, are concerned, I am of the view that each case is decided keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that particular case only. I have gone through all the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and not found any of them applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In view of the above discussion I do not find any force in any of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and am of the view that the learned trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as stated above. There is no illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned trial Court. 13. Consequently the appeal is dismissed having no force.