The petitioner herein, Biman Bora, along with two others, namely, Mintu Saikia and Anil Bora, faced trial, in GR Case No.189/98, on a charge framed against them under Section 392 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, having found the said three accused persons, including the present petitioner, guilty of the offence charged with, convicted him accordingly under Section 392 IPC by judgment and order, dated 22.10.2002 and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months with further direction that the amount of fine, if realized, shall be paid to the authorities of the Jogibheta Tea Estate. 2. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, all the three convicted persons aforementioned preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No.61/2002. By judgment and order, dated 16.07.2003, the learned Sessions Judge, FTC, Jorhat, set aside the conviction of the co-appellants, namely, Mintu Saikia and Anil Bora, and both of them were accordingly acquitted of the charge, which had been framed against them under Section 392 IPC, but the appeal, so far as the same concerned the present accused-petitioner, Biman Bora, was disallowed and his conviction, under Section 392 IPC, was accordingly upheld, but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.4,000/- and, in default thereof, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Still aggrieved, the accused-petitioner, Biman Bora, has come to this Court with this revision against his conviction and also the sentence passed against him. 3. I have heard Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. Before entering into the merit of this revision, it needs to be noted that the prosecution’s case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 28.02.98, while Sanjib Dutta, the then Assistant Manager of Jogibheta Tea Estate, along with his members of the staff, was carrying, in an Ambassador Car, a sum of Rs.53,000/- from Jorhat towards Jogibheta Tea Estate, four youths, by showing a khukri, which is a weapon capable of causing death, stopped the vehicle and took away the said sum of Rs.53,000/-. On reaching the Tea Estate, Sanjib Dutta reported the occurrence to Bibhu Charan Baruah, owner of the said Tea Estate, and, on the next date, i.e., on 29.02.98, a First Information Report (in short, FIR) was lodged, with regard to the occurrence, by Indra Kalita, the Road Mohorer of the said Tea Estate, at Lahdoigarh Police Outpost and, in course of time, based on the said FIR, Teok Police Station Case No.29/98, under Section 392 IPC, was registered. 5. During investigation of the case, police arrested accused Biman Bora and two more persons, namely, Mintu Senapati and Anil Bora (both of whom stand acquitted) and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against all of them under Section 392 IPC. 6. To a charge framed against them, at the trial, under Section 392 IPC, all the said three accused persons pleaded not guilty. 7. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. All the three accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforementioned, all the accused denied that they had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 8. Having, however, found all the three accused guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court, as indicated above, convicted them accordingly under Section 392 IPC and passed sentence against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, all the three convicted persons preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed by the learned appellate Court as mentioned above inasmuch as the conviction of the two of the appellants, namely, Mintu Saikia and Anil Bora, as well as the sentence passed against them were set aside and both of them were accordingly acquitted, but the present accused-petitioner, Biman Bora, was found guilty, his conviction was, therefore, upheld, but his sentence was reduced as mentioned above. 9. 9. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that PW1, (Indra Kalita), who is informant of this case, was, admittedly, not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence inasmuch as he was reported by Sanjib Dutta and two members of their staff, namely, Lakheswar Bora and Joynanda Gogoi, that on that day, i.e., on 28.02.1998, when they were returning from Jorhat to their Tea Estate, four persons stopped their vehicle and forcibly took away the money, which was being brought by them for labour payment to the said Tea Estate, and, on the basis of the information so received, he lodged an FIR, which is Ext.1. 10. So far as PW2 (Sanjib Dutta), Assistant Manager of the said Tea Estate, is concerned, his clear evidence is that on 28.02.98, while he, along with his members of the staff, was coming to the said Tea Estate by carrying Rs.53,000/- from the residence of the owner of the Tea Estate, Jorhat, in an Ambassador car, four youths tried to stop their vehicle and though he (PW2) asked the driver not to stop the vehicle, one of the youths jumped over the vehicle and the driver, out of fear, stopped the vehicle. PW2 identified the present accused as the person, who was present in the group of the said persons, one of them was holding a khukri in his hand, and they took away the cash amount of Rs.53,000/-, which was brought to the said Tea Estate. The identification of accused Biman Bora, at the trial, was substantive evidence and in view of the fact that defence could not elicit anything to show that the evidence, so given by PW2, was either incorrect or false, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court were wholly justified in taking the view that the accused-petitioner was one of the persons, who was involved in the said act of robbery. In fact, it is in the evidence of PW2 that it was accused Biman Bora, who had taken away the bag from the car. In such circumstances, when accused Biman Bora, according to the evidence on record, had kept his face covered, there is no reason, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, to either disbelieve PW2 or to consider his evidence as unsafe to place reliance upon. 11. In such circumstances, when accused Biman Bora, according to the evidence on record, had kept his face covered, there is no reason, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, to either disbelieve PW2 or to consider his evidence as unsafe to place reliance upon. 11. PW3 and PW4 supported the evidence of PW2 and notwithstanding the fact that PW4 could not identify any of the accused, the evidence of PW2, coupled with the evidence of PW3, was sufficient to hold that the present accused-petitioner was one of the persons, who had committed robbery by taking away Rs.53,000/- from the said car by putting the occupants thereof in fear of death or grievous injury, which could be fatal to them. 12. The learned trial Court, in the circumstances indicated above, was wholly justified in convicting the accused-petitioner and the learned appellate Court has, as can be clearly seen, had not committed any error in upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner. The findings of guilt, reached against the accused-petitioner, does not, thus, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, and does not, therefore, warrant interference by this Court in exercise of this Court’s revisional jurisdiction. 13. Coming to the question of sentence, it needs to be noted that it has been contended, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, that he ought to have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the fact remains that the learned trial Court had sentenced the accused-petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay fine of Rs.5,000/ and, in default thereof, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The learned appellate Court has reduced the period of imprisonment of one year to six months as already indicated above, and has also reduced the fine of Rs.5,000/- to a sum of Rs.4,000/-. For reducing the sentence, as indicated hereinbefore, the learned appellate Court has assigned no reason whatsoever. 14. It is noteworthy to bear in mind that punishment for robbery, as contained in Section 392 IPC, is 10 years with fine and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may extend to fourteen years. The offence of robbery is, therefore, a grave offence and cannot be lightly tinkered with. 14. It is noteworthy to bear in mind that punishment for robbery, as contained in Section 392 IPC, is 10 years with fine and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may extend to fourteen years. The offence of robbery is, therefore, a grave offence and cannot be lightly tinkered with. The learned trial Court was unusually lenient in imposing sentence of only one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and the learned appellate Court, without assigning any reason whatsoever, interfered with the sentence and reduced the same further as indicated above. 15. In the fact situation of the present case, this Court is clearly of the view that the present one is not a fit case to which the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, shall be extended. The sentence, which the learned appellate Court has passed, cannot, therefore, be reduced any further. 16. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any merit in this revision either on the question of conviction or on the question of sentence. This revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 17. Send back the LCR. _____________