JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 1/2005 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under sections 328 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month u/s 328 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 382 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the ground that without there being any incriminating evidence against the accused/appellants connecting them with the commission of the crime in question, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality by convicting and sentencing them as mentioned above. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.8.2003 complainant Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) resident of Supela, Bhilai, was going to Dongargarh by his Tata Sumo bearing registration No. C.G. -04/4060 for Devi Darshan and when he reached near village Murmunda accused/appellants stopped the vehicle and asked him for lift to Dongargarh. He gave them lift and on reaching Dongargarh, he dropped them at the Vehicle Stand and proceeded for the temple to have Devi Darshan. When he came back to the Vehicle Stand after having Devi Darshan, the accused/appellants again met him near the vehicle and asked for lift back to the place from where they were picked up. Accused Jagdish was sitting beside the complainant whereas accused Maan Singh was sitting at the back seat. When the complainant started the vehicle accused Maan Singh offered Laddu as Prasad and after eating it they started for Bhilai. After some time he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself in an isolated place. On asking the people of the vicinity about the temple, they mistook him to be in a drunken condition looking to his semiconscious state. Then he went to a nearby hand pump where one woman who was drawing water gave him water to drink. Thereafter, he went to a nearby telephone booth and told his father about the incident. The accused/appellants absconded with the vehicle. He lodged the report Ex. Then he went to a nearby hand pump where one woman who was drawing water gave him water to drink. Thereafter, he went to a nearby telephone booth and told his father about the incident. The accused/appellants absconded with the vehicle. He lodged the report Ex. P-7 at Police Station Aamgaon. However, the matter was transferred to police station Dongargarh where First Information Report Ex. P-14 was lodged. He was examined by the doctor vide Ex. P- 1 who found him in the state of depression. Papers relating to vehicle were seized from the complainant vide Ex. P-3 and documents relating to medical treatment were seized vide Ex. P-4. Spot map Ex. P-8 was prepared. Statement of complainant Kamlesh Pandey Ex. D-1 was recorded on 26.8.2003 under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he described the details of the persons who after being provided lift by him gave some intoxicating material mixed in Laddu as Prasad. During the course of investigation accused Jagdish was interrogated by the Police. He made disclosure statement Ex. P-5 and stated that Red colour Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 4060 was in possession of one Arun, the owner of Arun Diesel Centre at Vaishali (Bihar). On the basis of said disclosure statement Ex. P-5 police interrogated accused Arun who made disclosure statement Ex. P- 12 and stated that Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 4060 which is later changed as BR 06 C -9029 was standing near the house of one Ravindra Yadav at Patna. On the basis of disclosure statements Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-12 red colour Tata Sumo bearing registration No. BR 06 C -9029, engine No. 400700587 and chassis No. 385013 A QQ 900131 was recovered at the instance of accused Jagdish and Arun Sah. Identification parade was conducted in Sub Jail Dongargrh where complainant Kamlesh identified accused Jagdish vide Ex. P-6 and accused Maan Singh vide Ex. P-9. 4. After recording the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrte, Dongargarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session, Rajnandgaon, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, received the same on transfer for trial. Till framing of the charges, accused Arun Shah remained absconding. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they have denied the material appearing against them in the case of the prosecution and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. It is argued on behalf of the accused/appellants that the First Information Report was lodged on 25.8.2003 against the unknown persons and prior to the incident they were not known to the complainant. It is further argued that the identification parade of accused Jagdish was conducted on 25.4.2004 i.e. 8 months after the incident and that of accused Maan Singh on 6.12.2004 i.e. 16 months after the incident. It is argued that before conducting the identification parade the complainant had seen the accused/appellants in the police custody. According to the counsel for the accused/appellants there is no incriminating evidence against the accused/appellants to connect them with the crime in question. Reliance is placed on the decision High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mangaliya alias Mangalsingh v. State of M.P. 1 in which it has been held that if the accused are shown before the identification parade then it loses its importance. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Chittu alias Hemant and others v. State of M.P. (Now CG) 2 in which it has been held that identification parade conducted after a lapse of long time and delay is not explained, creates strong suspicion and conviction of the accused cannot be based on such identification. 9. On the other hand judgment impugned is supported on behalf of the respondent/State and it is argued that the accused/appellants administered poison to the complainant and committed the offence of extortion which has been proved by the prosecution by adducing credible and clinching evidence against them. 10. Case of the prosecution rests on the identification and circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of the vehicle on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused/appellants. 10. Case of the prosecution rests on the identification and circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of the vehicle on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused/appellants. In this case the accused/appellants have not disputed the commission of the offence. They have denied their complicity in the crime in question. 11. The identification is the only material evidence in this case to connect the accused/appellants with the crime in question. Complainant Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident while he was going to Dongargarh for Devi Darshan by his Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 4060, on the way two persons stopped the vehicle and requested for the lift to Dongargarh. After Devi Darshan again when the complainant was coming back, they requested him for the lift back to the place from where they boarded the vehicle. While coming back, they gave him Laddu as Prasad and after eating the same he became unconscious and on regaining consciousness he found himself near a village in the State of Maharashtra. The accused/appellants absconded with the vehicle and money which was kept in his pocket. He has further stated that when he regained consciousness he was not able to talk. When he asked the people of nearby place about the temple, they mistook him to be under the influence of liquor. Then he went to the hand pump where one woman gave him water to drink and when he asked her about the temple she told that it was Maharashtra State and there was no such temple. He went to a telephone booth and informed his father about the incident. Since money possessed by him was also taken away by the accused/appellants, he gave his wrist watch for the call made by him, but the owner of the said STD booth did not take it. Finally he went to Aamgaon police station and lodged the report where his father and other persons had also come. Numbered FIR was lodged on 26.8.2003 vide Ex. P-14. His statement was recorded was recorded on 26.8.2003 vide Ex. D - 1 in which he described the features of both the accused/appellants. 12. Accused/appellant Maan Singh was arrested on 16.9.2004. He was subjected to identification on 6.12.2004 vide Ex. P-9 inside the office of Naib Tehsildar, Dongargarh where complainant identified him among 4 persons. P-14. His statement was recorded was recorded on 26.8.2003 vide Ex. D - 1 in which he described the features of both the accused/appellants. 12. Accused/appellant Maan Singh was arrested on 16.9.2004. He was subjected to identification on 6.12.2004 vide Ex. P-9 inside the office of Naib Tehsildar, Dongargarh where complainant identified him among 4 persons. Accused Jagdish was taken into custody on 19.3.2004 and he was subjected to identification on 25.4.2004 at Sub Jail Dongargarh, vide Ex. P-6 and he was identified by the complaint amongst 9 persons. Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) has admitted in paragraph 28 of his evidence that after the incident he saw the accused/appellants in Cant. Police station and thereafter he identified them at Dongargarh. But he has denied that the talk of compromise between the accused/appellants and himself. He has specifically stated that the accused persons were continuously threatening him for compromise. Complainant has denied that he had put a condition to the accused/appellants of giving him new Tata Sumo, for compromise and when they did not agree to that condition he threatened to get them convicted and sentenced. He has admitted in paragraph 30 of his evidence that after receiving information regarding arrest of the accused/appellants he went to Allahabad along with his friend Narendra where two accused persons along with others were present. He has stated in paragraph 32 of his evidence that the accused/appellants committed the offence against him and he identified them at the time of incident itself. In his detailed cross examination complainant has specifically stated that the accused appellants were with him for a sufficient long time. Firstly while going to Dongargarh, they stopped the vehicle and asked for the lift and again while he came back to the vehicle stand after having Devi Darshan they again boarded the vehicle to be dropped at the place from where they were picked up. Accused/appellant Jagdish was sitting beside him whereas accused/appellant Maan Singh was sitting on the back seat. Accused Maan Singh gave him Laddu as Prasad and after eating it he became unconscious. He also stated that when accused Maan Singh gave him Laddu as Prasad, he suspected that at Dongargarh Prasad of Laddu is not offered but later he though that it might be for some specific purpose. He has given the descriptions of the accused persons in Ex. D-1 after he regained consciousness. He also stated that when accused Maan Singh gave him Laddu as Prasad, he suspected that at Dongargarh Prasad of Laddu is not offered but later he though that it might be for some specific purpose. He has given the descriptions of the accused persons in Ex. D-1 after he regained consciousness. When the accused/appellants were arrested, he was called by the Police and when he went there he saw the accused/appellants along with other persons. He identified them among other persons vide Ex. P-5 and P-6. 13. Definitely, the complainant saw the accused/appellants prior to the Test Identification Parade in police station and after a lapse of long time he identified them in the Test Identification Parade. In the case of Chittu alias Hemant and others (supra) it has been held by the High Court of Chhattisgarh that long unexplained delay creates a strong suspicion and prosecution is required to conduct the Identification Parade as early as possible and if the delay occurs, it should be explained properly. In the said case the persons who identified the accused had not seen him earlier and at the time of incident he saw him just for a few seconds. In the case of Mangaliya alias Mangalsingh it has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that identification after one month of the occurrence was not reliable. In that case complainant had seen the accused prior to the Test Identification Parade. Such identification has been held to be illegal and on the basis of such identification the accused cannot be punished. 14. In the matter of Kanan v. State of Kerala 3 it has been held by the Apex Court that the purpose of holding Test Identification Parade is to test the veracity of the witnesses on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. Relevant portion is reproduced as under: "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous TI parade to test the his powers of observations. Relevant portion is reproduced as under: "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous TI parade to test the his powers of observations. The idea of holding TI parade under section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witnesses on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no TI parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court." 15. In the case of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra 4 it has been held by the Apex Court that in case the complainant is not known to the accused and no test identification was held to test his power of identification and the accused was shown by the Police before he identified the appellant in the Court, his evidence becomes absolutely valueless on the question of identification. Ina the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh 5 it has been held by the Apex Court that the test identification parade, if held promptly and after taking the necessary precautions to ensure its credibility, would lend the required assurance which the Court ordinarily seeks to act on it. In the absence of such test identification parade, it would be extremely risky to place implicit reliance on identification made for the first time in Court after a long lapse of time and that too of persons who changed their appearance. 16. As regards question of identification, the statement relating to Test Identification is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence of identification. Dock identification (identification of the accused in Court) is substantial evidence and it can be accepted if otherwise found to be reliable. In the matter of Suraj Pal and others v. State of Haryana 6 while dealing with the same question it has been held by the Apex Court that the dock identification is accepted if otherwise found to be reliance. In the matter of Suraj Pal and others v. State of Haryana 6 while dealing with the same question it has been held by the Apex Court that the dock identification is accepted if otherwise found to be reliance. Relevant portion reads thus: "Before dealing with the various contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as referred to above, we shall first state the object, purpose and importance of the test identification parade. It may be pointed out that the holding of identification parade has been in vogue since long in the past with a view to determine whether an unknown person accused of an offence is really the culprit or not, to be identified as such by those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence so that they would be able to identify the culprit if produced before them by recalling the impressions of his features left on their mind. That being so, in the very nature of things, the identification parade in such cases serves a dual purpose. It enables the investigating agency to ascertain to correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the offender of the crime as well as their capacity to identify him and on the other hand it saves the suspect from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by such witnesses during the course of the trial. This practice of test identification as a mode of identifying an unknown person charged of an offence is an age- old method and it has worked well for the past several decades as a satisfactory mode and a well- founded method of criminal jurisprudence. It may also be noted that a the substantive evidence of identifying witness is his evidence made in the court but in cases where the accused person is not known to the witnesses from before who claimed to have seen the incident, in that event identification of the accused at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence by such witnesses is of vital importance with a view to avoid the chance of his memory fading away by the time he is examined in the court after some lapse of time." 17. In the matter of Daya Singh v. State of Haryana 7 it has been held by the Apex Court that delay in trial and identification of accused in Court after seven or eight years would not affect evidence of said witnesses and conviction of accused on the basis of their testimony even in the absence of test identification their statement relating to dock identification can be relied upon. Relevant portion is reproduced as under: "It is to be borne in mind that purpose of test identification is to have corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitness in the form of earlier identification and that substantive evidence of a witness is the evidence in the Court. If that evidence is found to be reliable then absence of corroboration by test identification would not be in any way material. Further, where reasons for gaining an enduring impress of the identify on the mind and memory of the witnesses are brought on record, it is no use to magnify the theoretical possibilities and arrive at conclusion - what in present day social environment infested by terrorism is really unimportant. In such cases, not holding of identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution." 18. In the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujrat 8 it has been held been held by the Apex Court that identification of accused for the first time in court by eyewitnesses when they did not know him earlier and when no test identification parade was held, such identification is not irrelevant or inadmissible. 19. In the matter of Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 9 it has been held by the Apex Court that the evidence of test identification is admissible under section 9 of the Evidence Act. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused. Relevant portion reads as under: "The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act; it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused in court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity of the culprit can be fixed by circumstantial evidence also." 20. In the matter of Jayawant Dattatraya Suryarao and others v. State of Maharashtra 10 it has been held by the Apex Court that where evidence of witness is cogent, consistent and without motive, it cannot be rejected merely on ground that the witness having seen the accused for a few minutes it would be difficult for him to identify the accused because power of perception and memorizing varies from person to person. 21. In the present case the complainant has admitted that he saw the accused/appellants prior to the test identification in police custody. He has categorically stated that he identified the accused/appellants in dock identification specifically saying that accused/appellant was sitting beside him whereas accused/appellant Maan Singh was sitting on the back seat and it is accused Maan Singh who offered him the Prasad of Laddu. He has given detailed description of the accused persons in his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure just after his becoming normal. He has specifically stated in paragraph 32 of the cross examination that he well identified the accused/appellants in police station to be the persons who had caused the incident. Complainant is the person who was stopped by these accused/appellants who went with him up to Dongargarh in his vehicle and again when the complainant came to his vehicle after having Devi Darshan they requested him to give them left up to the place from where they were picked up. Accordingly, he again obliged them by giving left again. Complainant was having sufficient opportunity to see them. There was discussion also between the complainant and the accused persons. While traveling back, accused Maan Singh gave Prasad of Laddu to him. Accordingly, he again obliged them by giving left again. Complainant was having sufficient opportunity to see them. There was discussion also between the complainant and the accused persons. While traveling back, accused Maan Singh gave Prasad of Laddu to him. This shows that the complainant was having ample opportunity to come into the close contact of the accused persons and watch their activities which led him to identify them in dock identification and also in test identification parade. He also saw the accused persons in the police station among some persons and there also he identified them. This shows that he has not identified the accused/appellants in the dock identification on the basis of test identification but he identified them on the basis of having ample opportunity of seeing them earlier to it. 22. Dock identification i.e. identification in the Court is substantive evidence for establishing the identity of the accused/appellants. Evidence of test identification can be used to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in the Court regarding identification of the accused. The object of the test identification is to make aware and give assurance to the Investigating Agency that the crime in question has been committed by the person whom the complainant has identified in the test identification and on the basis of such test identification the investigating agency may proceed further against such person. But if identification of the accused is otherwise established i.e. from circumstantial evidence, statement given by the complainant or the person who saw the accused in the court, physical appearance of the accused or because of sufficient opportunity available to the complainant of seeing the accused, it can safely be relied by the Court and in that case absence of test identification or any infirmity in the same, will not make the substantive evidence infirm or unreliable. In this case the statement of the complainant in which he has categorically stated that he was having sufficient opportunity to see the accused/appellants and on the basis of peculiar circumstances he identified the accused persons in the Court, appears to be trust worthy and inspires confidence. 23. In this case the statement of the complainant in which he has categorically stated that he was having sufficient opportunity to see the accused/appellants and on the basis of peculiar circumstances he identified the accused persons in the Court, appears to be trust worthy and inspires confidence. 23. As regards complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) has categorically stated that while he was going to Dongargarh by his Tata Sumo vehicle, both the accused/appellants were standing by the side of the road near village Murmuda, they stopped the vehicle, asked for lift up to Dongargah, after being permitted by him they boarded the vehicle and went along with him to Dongargarh. Again when the complainant came back to the vehicle stand after having Devi Darshan, both the accused persons requested him for the lift back to the place from where they first boarded the vehicle which the complainant again permitted. While coming back, accused/appellant Jagdish occupied the seat beside the complainant and accused Maan Singh was sitting on the back seat. After some time, accused Maan Singh first gave him the ilaychi daana and then Laddu as Prasad. After eating the Prasad, he became unconscious. After regaining his consciousness he found himself in a lonely place in the State of Maharashtra but both the accused persons were not there. His vehicle was also not there. Money kept in his pocket was also missing. Thereafter, he went to the nearby STD booth and telephonically informed his father. Towards the charges, he tried to give the wrist watch but the owner of the STD booth refused to accept it. Sangita Randiye (PW-7) has stated in her evidence that complainant went to her STD booth in an intoxicated state, telephoned his wife and since he was not having money he tried to give his wrist watch towards the call charges but she did not take the same. Dr. P.C. Jain (PW-1) who examined the complainant has stated that the condition of the complainant was not normal. His blood pressure and pulse rate was normal but his reaction to light was slow. His reflexes were also slow. OPD ticket of the complainant is Ex. P-1 and the certificate issued under his signature is Ex. P-2. 24. Dr. P.C. Jain (PW-1) who examined the complainant has stated that the condition of the complainant was not normal. His blood pressure and pulse rate was normal but his reaction to light was slow. His reflexes were also slow. OPD ticket of the complainant is Ex. P-1 and the certificate issued under his signature is Ex. P-2. 24. Prosecution has also adduced the evidence regarding recovery of Tata Sumo vehicle at the instance of accused/appellant Jagdish and absconded accused Arun Sah. Vishnu (PW-3) and Bhagchand (PW-4) have admitted their signature over the memorandum Ex. P-5 but they have not supported the recovery. Moolchand Dulichand (PW-8) has supported the FIR lodged in Police Station Amgaon. Pramod Kumar Sipoha (PW-9) has stated in his evidence that accused/appellant Jagdish made disclosure statement Ex. P-5 on the basis of which he interrogated accused Arun Sah who also made disclosure statement Ex. P-12. On the basis of disclosure statements (Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-12), Tata Sumo bearing registration No. BR 06 C/9029, Engine No. 400400587 and chassis No. 385013 A QQ 900131 was recovered at Patna (Bihar). He has also stated that he seized the registration book and other papers vide Ex. P-3. According to the seizure memo firstly the registration number of Tata Sumo was MP 23 ZA 1771 which was later changed as CG 04/ZD 4060, Engine No. 700587 and chassis No. 900131. In the cross examination this witness has denied that accused Jagdish did not make statement at C to C portion that Tata Sumo vehicle was in possession of accused Arun Sah. 25. Accused/appellants have denied all the circumstances appearing them in the case of the prosecution and they have not offered any explanation including the fact that the complainant had seen them earlier to the test identification. Though Pramod Kumar Sipoha (PW-9) has not specifically stated in his examination in chief relating to the disclosure statement given by accused Jagdish yet in his cross examination on behalf of accused Jagdish he has clarified that accused Jagdish made disclosure statement at C to C portion of Ex. P-5 according to which vehicle in question was in possession of accused Arun Sah. The said vehicle was seized on the basis of memorandum Ex. P-12 of accused Arun Sah vide seizure memo Ex. P-11. Vehicle seized bears the same chassis number as of the vehicle belonging to the complainant. P-5 according to which vehicle in question was in possession of accused Arun Sah. The said vehicle was seized on the basis of memorandum Ex. P-12 of accused Arun Sah vide seizure memo Ex. P-11. Vehicle seized bears the same chassis number as of the vehicle belonging to the complainant. Accused/appellants have not however explained as to how accused Jagdish knew that accused Arun Sah was in possession of the said vehicle at Patna (Bihar). They have also not offered any explanation as to how accused Arun Sah possessed the vehicle either in the capacity of owner or in any other capacity. Kamlesh Pandey (PW-6) has categorically stated that both the accused/appellants were the last persons with him when he was driving the vehicle in the state of consciousness but after eating the Prasad he became unconscious and after he regained consciousness, both the accused/appellants were not there. The vehicle owned by him was also not there. Non explanation of the circumstances goes against the accused/appellants. The statement of the complainant is trustworthy and sufficient for drawing an inference that the accused/appellants are the person who were with him in his vehicle and accused/appellant Maan Singh gave him Prasad after eating which he became unconscious and thereafter, his vehicle and money were removed from his possession and lastly the vehicle was recovered from the possession of accused Arun Sah. 26. After appreciating the evidence available on record learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under sections 328 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit the offence of theft after preparation made for causing death or restraint in order to committing of theft. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on reliable and clinching evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 27. As regards question of sentence, accused/appellants asked for lift and boarded the vehicle of the complainant and caused hurt by means of poison and committed theft after preparation of causing death or hurt. Virtually after causing hurt by poison i.e. using criminal force against the complainant, they took away the vehicle and money from his possession and thus they have committed the offence of robbery. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and seven on each count and fine of Rs. Virtually after causing hurt by poison i.e. using criminal force against the complainant, they took away the vehicle and money from his possession and thus they have committed the offence of robbery. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and seven on each count and fine of Rs. 500.00 for each offence awarded to them by the trial Court is neither excessive nor unjust. 28. Consequently, the appeal being without merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Judgment impugned passed by the trial Court is maintained.