JUDGMENT This appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 406 of 1996, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu under Sections 394/397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘I.P.C.’), and each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.03.1995, at about 11:30 A.M., PW1, Mohd. Siddiqui along with PW2 Basant Singh (a guard) and PW3 Rajendra Singh had gone to Bank of Baroda, extension counter Co-operative Cane Society, Kashipur and withdrew Rs. 5,00,000/- for being distributed among the farmers towards the price of sugar cane. As soon as they came out, two miscreants came from behind and caught hold of Basant Singh (PW1) and fired at him. The DBBL gun of the guard was snatched and thereafter cash box which was being carried by PW3, Rajendra Singh was snatched by the accused. After the robbery, the two miscreants rode a scooter which was kept started by the third miscreant. As soon as they proceeded further many staff members chased and surrounded the scooter and before it could pick up speed and two of the miscreants were overpowered, who disclosed their names as Tejveer Singh (appellant no. 1) and Omkar @ Pappu (appellant no. 2). The third accused succeeded in running away with the scooter. The entire cash looted and the DBBL gun was recovered at the spot from the two accused. A First Information Report (Ext. A1) was got scribed through PW4 Yogendra Singh and PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui, a cashier of the Society gave the First Information Report at Police Station Kashipur on the very day (23.03.1995) at 1.00 P.M. (within one and half hours). On the basis of said report crime No. 196 of 1995 was registered against accused/appellant Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu relating to offences punishable under Sections 394/411 I.P.C. Name of Jeet Singh, the third accused whose name was disclosed by the apprehended accused was also mentioned in the First Information Report. PW8 Sub Inspector Umed Ali investigated the crime. The witnesses were interrogated. PW8 Sub Inspector Umed Ali investigated the crime. The witnesses were interrogated. Injuries on the persons of Basant Singh (guard) and that of Tejveer Singh (accused/appellant no. 1) were got examined through PW7 Dr. Surendra Singh of L.D. Bhatt Hospital, Kashipur. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in respect of offences punishable under Section 394, 397, 411 I.P.C. was filed against all the three accused persons, namely, Tejveer Singh (appellant no. 1), Omkar @ Pappu (appellant no. 2) and Jeet Singh. Since fire arms were also recovered from the accused, as such, separate cases relating to offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act were registered against accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu. Said offence was also investigated and separate charge sheets were filed in respect of offences punishable under Section 25 Arms Act against the two accused. 4. Learned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions, for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, to whom the case was transferred, after hearing the parties on 14.08.1996, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 394/397 I.P.C. against accused/appellant Tejveeer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu, both of whom pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the accused/appellants pleaded not guilty, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 Mohd. Siddiqui (informant); P.W.2 Basant Singh (injured eye witness); P.W.3 Rajendra Singh (declared hostile); P.W.4 Yogendra Singh (scribe of the report); P.W.5 Naresh Saxena (declared hostile); P.W.6 Jitendra Lal (declared hostile); P.W.7 Dr. Surendra Singh (the Medical Officer who examined the injuries on the person of Basant Singh and accused Tejveer Singh); P.W.8 S.I. Umed Ali, (Investigating Officer) and PW9 A.S.I. J.C. Tiwari who prepared the check report. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which the accused pleaded that evidence adduced against them is false. However, no evidence in defence was given. PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui was recalled and examined as CW1. Thereafter, CW2 Rajeev Mishra, Bank Manager was also examined. Fresh statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded of the two accused in respect of the said two witnesses. However, no evidence in defence was given. PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui was recalled and examined as CW1. Thereafter, CW2 Rajeev Mishra, Bank Manager was also examined. Fresh statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded of the two accused in respect of the said two witnesses. After hearing the parties, the trial court found both accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu guilty of offence punishable under Sections 394/397 I.P.C. However, accused Jeet Singh was acquitted of the said charge. Thereafter the trial court heard learned counsel for the parties on sentence and sentenced each of the two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten year. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 31.07.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 406 of 1996, this appeal is preferred by the convicts. 5. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries suffered by PW2 Basant Singh at the time of incident, which were proved by PW7 Dr. Surendra Singh, who prepared injury report (Ext. A2) on 23.03.1995. The six injuries found on the person of Basant Singh are being reproduced below from the injury report (Ext. A2):- (i) Lacerated wound 3 cm x scalp deep. Present left side back of head. 5 cm above the left ear. Fresh bleeding present. (ii) Lacerated wound 2 in number, 2 cm x .5 cm, 1 cm x .5 cm both scalp deep. Present on back of head. Fresh bleeding present. (iii) Lacerated wound, 1.5 cm x .5 cm and 1 cm x .5 cm two in number. Present right side head 3 cm above the right ear. Fresh bleeding present. (iv) Lacerated wound around terminal phalynx of little finger of left hand. Fresh bleeding present. (v) Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep. Present over distal interphalyngeal joint of ring finger of left hand. Fresh bleeding present. X-ray advised of ring finger of left hand. (vi) Contusion present around middle finger of left hand. The Medical Officer advised X-ray relating to all the above injuries. He observed in the Injury Report (Ext. A2) that all the injuries were caused by hard blunt object, and duration was fresh. PW7 Dr. Surendra Singh has stated that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused on 23.09.1995 at about 11:30 A.M. 6. PW7 Dr. The Medical Officer advised X-ray relating to all the above injuries. He observed in the Injury Report (Ext. A2) that all the injuries were caused by hard blunt object, and duration was fresh. PW7 Dr. Surendra Singh has stated that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused on 23.09.1995 at about 11:30 A.M. 6. PW7 Dr. Surendra Singh, on the very day also examined injuries on the person of Tejveer Singh, accused/appellant no. 1, who is said to have been arrested at the spot after he was chased. The injuries found on the person of Tejveer Singh are reproduced below from the Injury Report (Ext. A3) prepared by the aforesaid Medical Officer :- (i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep. Present left side lower lip. Fresh bleeding present. (ii) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. Present right side lower lip. Fresh bleeding present. (iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep. Present over upper lip. (iv) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep. Present on upper lid of left eye. Fresh bleeding present. (v) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 1 cm below left eye. Fresh bleeding present. (vi) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x Scalp deep. Fresh bleeding present left side of forehead 3 cm above the left eyebrow. (vii) Multiple abraded contusions present palmer surface of both hands. Duration of above injuries were also found fresh and it is observed in the Injury Report (Ext. A3) that the same were caused by hard and blunt object. X-ray was advised of head and face. 7. PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui (though partly declared hostile) has substantially corroborated the entire prosecution story as against accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu. Only relating to third accused Jeet Singh, his statement did not support the prosecution story, as he has not named him in his statement. PW1 Mohd. Siddique has stated that on 23.03.1995 at 11:30 A.M. he had gone to Bank of Baroda to withdraw Rs. 5,00,000/- for distribution to the farmers of Cane Society. He has further stated that Rajendra Singh (PW3) and Basant Singh (PW2, a guard) were with him. He further states that when he was coming out, two miscreants caught hold of Basant Singh and fired at him. 5,00,000/- for distribution to the farmers of Cane Society. He has further stated that Rajendra Singh (PW3) and Basant Singh (PW2, a guard) were with him. He further states that when he was coming out, two miscreants caught hold of Basant Singh and fired at him. Gun of the guard was snatched and thereafter the two accused snatched the cash box from Rajendra Singh. The witness has further narrated that soon thereafter accused Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu were arrested at the spot but third accused succeeded in running away. The witness has further proved that he lodged first information report at the police station. The above statement of the PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui cannot be disbelieved for the reason that the statement gets corroborated relating to the incident from the injury reports relating to Basant Singh (PW2) who has also corroborated the prosecution story. But PW2 Basant Singh too was got declared partly hostile for the reason that he states that after he fell down he was taken to hospital, as such, he does not know if the accused was arrested at the spot or not. But this witness does corroborate the fact that the incident took place and he suffered injuries at the spot. 8. Though eye witness, PW3 Rajendra Singh, PW5 Naresh Saxena and PW6 Jogendra Lal have turned hostile but even without their statements, the charge as against the accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu stands proved on the report. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has committed no error of law in convicting the two accused/appellants under Section 394/397 I.P.C. as they were arrested at the spot. Accused/appellant no. 1 Tejveer Singh belongs to district Gaziabad and accused/appellant no. 2 Omkar @ Pappu belongs to district Moradabad. The incident is day light and the First Information Report is a prompt one, supported by the Injury Reports. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution fully, as such, the trial court has erred in law in holding the accused/appellants Tejveer Singh and Omkar @ Pappu guilty of offence punishable under Sections 394/397 I.P.C. However, on carefully going through the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence given by PW1 Mohd. Siddiqui and PW2 Basant Singh (injured) which is corroborated not only from the Injury Report of Basant Singh but also that of accused/appellant no. 1 Tejveer Singh. The prosecution story further gets corroborated from the fact that amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was being taken by the two accused was recovered on the spot after they were chased. 10. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor there appears any error in appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Accused/appellant no. 1 Tejveer Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Lower court record be sent back to make the appellant Tejveer Singh served out the sentence awarded by the trial court. Accused Omkar @ Pappu is said to be in jail. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the superintendent of the jail concerned for information of the said appellant.