Judgment D.H. Waghela, J.—The appeal is preferred by one of the seven accused persons convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 506 (2), 411, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act. The appeal of the appellant was ordered to be listed with other Criminal Appeal Nos. 1246 and 1285 of 2011 arising from the same judgment. 2. It was submitted by learned Counsel, Mr. Gupta, appearing for the appellant herein that the appellants in other appeals are not prepared to argue the appeal for final disposal at this stage apparently in view of the fact that the appellants therein are released on bail during and after the trial. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since more than six years and four months, without any furlough, parole or temporary bail. Having regard to the limited role ascribed to the appellant in the impugned judgment and other attendant circumstances, the appeal was pressed, without prejudice to other contentions of the appellant, only for reducing overall sentence from life imprisonment to the term of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel, Mr. Gupta, submitted that even as serious offence of robbery was held to have been proved in the impugned judgment and seven persons were convicted for a systematic and planned robbery, with use of arms, role of the appellant held to have been proved before the trial Court was limited to driving the vehicle. He further submitted that, even as the appellant was aged nearly 24 years at the time of offence, he was proved to have been facing serious financial crisis on account of sickness of his mother and, in fact, the money alleged to have been looted and shared by the appellant were recovered from the moneylender from whom the appellant had borrowed the amount of Rs. 35,000/- for treatment of his mother. Therefore, it was under such poor condition and at such age that the appellant was driven to join commission of such serious offences. He further submitted that the appellant has lost his father in the year 2001 and his family, mainly consisting of women folk, is dependent upon the appellant. On the other hand, total muddamal recovered from or through the appellant was Rs. 46,000/-. He further submitted that the appellant has lost his father in the year 2001 and his family, mainly consisting of women folk, is dependent upon the appellant. On the other hand, total muddamal recovered from or through the appellant was Rs. 46,000/-. Thus, the net result for the appellant has been rigorous imprisonment of more than six years, according to the submission. He, therefore, submitted that, having regard to the special facts and circumstances obtaining in the case of the appellant, the punishment may be suitably reduced. 4. Learned APP submitted that, even as other appellants are already released on bail and four of the convicted persons have not filed appeal, the Court may make appropriate order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Having heard Learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perusing the record and more particularly the fact that, even as original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 and sentenced to life imprisonment, the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, overall period of sentence is required to be reduced in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2006 and 54 of 2007 is modified only to the extent that the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 394 in the facts of his case, without interference with other orders of sentences imposed upon the appellant. P P P P P