JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the appellant's conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 394 r/w Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed upon the appellant by the learned Judge on each of the two counts on conclusion of Sessions Case No. 63 of 2010. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: On the night of 20-2-2010 when the complainant Kirit Makwana was sleeping in his house along with his family members, he noticed three miscreants on the ground floor. He woke up his wife, gave her his mobile phone asking her to contact relations and raised cries. One of the miscreants gave a blow by a chopper. It was this appellant. The other two miscreants managed to flee. The miscreants had stolen two gold ornaments weighing 17 grams and 3 grams and cash of Rs.5,000/- from the first informant's house. Since the appellant was caught and neighbours had gathered and there was a commotion, a police party on patrolling duty soon reached the spot. The appellant had been thrashed by the mob. The appellant was taken in custody and the chopper was seized from the appellant. The victim had gone to a nearby doctor and thereafter gave a report to the police. The appellant, too, was referred for medical examination, since he had injuries. 3. In the course of investigation the police performed panchnama of the spot, recorded statements of the witnesses, seized the blood stained clothes of the victim, caused samples of the appellant and the victim to be taken, sent the samples and the blood-stained clothes to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation, sent the charge-sheet to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Dindoshi, Mumbai. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over charged the appellant of having committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 394 r/w Section 397 of the IPC, in furtherance of common intention shared by the appellant with the two absconders. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was that the appellant had in fact been arrested by the police about two days before the incident and had been thrashed up. Since the appellant had suffered serious injuries, in order to cover-up the assault by the police on the appellant, the appellant was involved falsely in the alleged robbery at the house of Kirit Makwana. After considering the prosecution's evidence in the light of the defence raised, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for short. "APP") for the State and with the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record. 6. PW-1 Bharat Pandiya and PW-2 Nirav Solanki are the panchas who admit having been friends of the first informant. However, this does not materially affect the value of the panchnamas proved by them at Exhibits-15, 16 and 17, since these panchnamas do not add to the evidence against the appellant who was apprehended on the spot. As far as seizures of clothes of the victim and the chopper from the appellant are concerned, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit-27 is Inconclusive as far as ABO grouping is concerned and therefore these seizures are unhelpful to connect the appellant to the crime. 7. PW-3 Kirit Makwana is the first informant who claims having caught the appellant on the spot at about 3:30 a.m. while committing the robbery. He states that he was injured by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is strange that after the cousin of the witness came, the witness realised that he had some injury on his left hand, after the cousin pointed out to him that there was some injury. The learned counsel wondered as to how a person who suffers injury would himself not notice that. Strange are the ways of human mind and a person in a traumatic situation may indeed fail to notice that he had suffered an injury. The learned counsel wondered as to how a person who suffers injury would himself not notice that. Strange are the ways of human mind and a person in a traumatic situation may indeed fail to notice that he had suffered an injury. PW-6 ASI Dilip Gunjal, who was on patrolling duty with the patrolling party, stated that on hearing a commotion he rushed to the spot where a mob had apprehended the appellant. He then took the appellant in custody. Thus, the evidence of PW-6 ASI Gunjal would corroborate the version of PW-3 Kirit Makwana that the appellant was apprehended at the spot. The learned counsel for the appellant wondered as to why there was not a single independent eye-witness examined, though a mob was stated to have gathered at the spot and beaten up the appellant. The learned APP submits that it is not that there were no independent witnesses, but since the evidence tendered was found sufficient no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 8. PW-4 Dr. Vijaykumar Shetty examined Kirit Makwana. He deposed that he had examined Kirit Makwana at 2:30 a.m. The learned counsel for the appellant wondered as to how Kirit Makwana could have been examined at 2:30 a.m. when the incident itself took place at 3:30 a.m. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, the time mentioned by the Doctor may be a slip committed because the Doctor may be in sleep at that time. The injury certificates of the appellant are at Exhibits-21 and 22. The first mentions the name of the appellant as "Balu Kacharu Shinde" and the second mentions his name as "Mohd Ali Moinuddin Sayyed". This according to the learned APP, occurred because the appellant first gave his name as "Balu Kacharu Shinde" and then disclosed it to be "Mohd Ali Moinuddin Sayyed". The learned counsel wondered as to how there are two OPD Numbers - 9516 and 9595 - on the two certificates, as also two casualty numbers. This may have occurred because the appellant was again taken to the hospital after he gave his correct name to avoid complications. In fact, the certificate at Exhibit-22 shows that the appellant had been examined in the casualty on 21/2/10 itself. This may have occurred because the appellant was again taken to the hospital after he gave his correct name to avoid complications. In fact, the certificate at Exhibit-22 shows that the appellant had been examined in the casualty on 21/2/10 itself. Thus, though the two certificates are in two names, the injury observed is a fracture to the left clavicle and therefore there should be no doubt about the correctness of the certificates. In any case, the certificates are in tune with the appellant's defence that he had been thrashed up. The question is whether the appellant was thrashed up by the police before the incident occurred or by the mob at the time of the incident. There would be no reason for PW-3 Kirit Makwana to falsely state that the appellant was inside his house and that he had caught the appellant and in the process he had suffered an injury. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had committed lurking house trespass or house breaking at night and also used a chopper in the commission of robbery at the complainant's house. 9. The evidence of PW-5 PSI Sujit Chauhan is for proving of the first information report, the spot panchnama and the panchnama of the arrest and PW-7 PI Madhukar Bhigardeve seem to have carried out the investigation and sent the charge-sheet. 10. The defence taken by the appellant that he had already been arrested in some other offence, beaten up by the police badly and then implicated in this case to cover-up that beating was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge, since the appellant had not at all submitted or suggested to the prosecution witnesses the particulars about his alleged arrest in an earlier offence. Even now the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to state as to when the appellant was arrested, who was the officer who had picked him up, from what spot and for which delinquency. Therefore, the defence appears to be imaginary. No fault can be found in the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 394 r/w Section 397 of the IPC. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence is too harsh. Therefore, the defence appears to be imaginary. No fault can be found in the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 394 r/w Section 397 of the IPC. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence is too harsh. The appellant has been in jail since 212-20 I 0 and therefore he may be let off on the sentence already undergone. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, since the sentence of imprisonment for seven years is the minimum prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and since the appellant was found to have used a deadly weapon in the course of commission of robbery, the sentence cannot at all be reduced. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.