JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the two accused persons in S.C. No. 532/2003 before the Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.2.2005 passed in the said case convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was, at about 6.00 a.m. on 8.8.2000, P.W. 1-K.Nagabhushan, resident of B.K. Nagar, 1st ‘D’ Main Road, 15th Cross, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, went to the terrace of his two storied building and after finishing regular morning exercise and shaving, when he was about to come down to the house, the two appellants came there, put a rope around his neck and tried to strangulate him and started forcibly taking him down the staircase, however, on account of slipping on the steps, he relieved himself from the pressure of strangulation and screamed for help. On hearing his screaming sounds, his wife-Yashodamma (P.W. 2) and daughter-Priyanka (P.W. 3) came there and on seeing P.W. 2 wearing gold chain and ear-rings, Accused No. 1 snatched the gold chain as well as ear-rings and while pulling-out the ear-rings forcibly, P.W. 2 sustained injury and on hearing sounds of galata, P.W. 4-Krishnamurthy Reddy, P.W. 5-Prasanna and others who are neighbourers, came there. In the meanwhile, on being informed by some one, P.W. 6-Thibbaiah, ASI on duty in Hoysala Van and P.W. 9-B.K. Boregowda, Head Constable on duty in Cheetha Vehicle also came there. Both the accused were caught-hold and the gold chain snatched from the person of P.W. 2 was found in the pocket of Accused No. 1. Thereafter, both the accused were taken to the police station, where P.W. 1 lodged a report about the incident as per Ex.P.1 before P.W. 10-B. Narasimhaiah, PSI of Yeshwanthpur Police Station and based on the said report, the case in Crime No. 491/2002 came to be registered and investigation was taken-up. 3. During investigation, P.W. 10-B. Narasimhaiah visited the scene of occurrence, drew-up the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and recovered the rope-MO.1 used for strangulation. On personal search of Accused No. 1, gold chain-MO.2 was recovered under mahazar-Ex.P.3. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The two injured namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had been treated by P.W. 8-Dr. 3. During investigation, P.W. 10-B. Narasimhaiah visited the scene of occurrence, drew-up the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and recovered the rope-MO.1 used for strangulation. On personal search of Accused No. 1, gold chain-MO.2 was recovered under mahazar-Ex.P.3. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The two injured namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had been treated by P.W. 8-Dr. Shylaja in K.C. General Hospital. The wound certificates issued by P.W. 8 in respect of P.Ws. 1 and 2 were collected as per Exs.P4 and P5. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be laid for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC. Though the accused persons were initially remanded to judicial custody, later they were released on bail. 4. On committal of the case, the appellants appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the charges levelled against them, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and relied on documentary evidence-Exs.P1 to P10 as well as MOs. 1 to 3. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence. Their defence was one of total denial and that of false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and accordingly, both the accused were convicted for the said offence. However, the learned Sessions Judge found no material in respect of the charge levelled against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, therefore, they were acquitted of the said charge. 7. After hearing the counsel for the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine as noticed supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the two accused persons are in appeal before this Court. 8. I have heard Sri. B.L. Kumar and L. Pradeep, advocates who filed vakalath for Accused Nos. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the two accused persons are in appeal before this Court. 8. I have heard Sri. B.L. Kumar and L. Pradeep, advocates who filed vakalath for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively today with ‘no objections’ from the previous counsel, who had filed vakalath on their behalf, as also learned HCGP. 9. Learned counsels for the appellants contended that the judgment under appeal is highly perverse and illegal inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction on the highly interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4. He contended that the evidence on record is not consistent and cogent, as such, the evidence could not have been the basis for recording the conviction against the appellants. He further contended that the identity of the appellants as the assailants is not satisfactorily established for the reason that admittedly no T.I. parade has been conducted. He further contended that the evidence on record clearly belies the story of snatching ear-rings : MO.3 from the person of P.W. 2 since the same was not seized during investigation and MO.3 was shown to have been produced by P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the time of the trial. He further contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 makes it clear that one can reach the terrace of the building only through the main door in the ground floor and not by any other means, as such, the entire story of the prosecution is false and concocted, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting the appellants. Therefore, learned counsels sought for allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and for acquittal of the appellants. Alternatively, the learned counsels contended that, if for any reason this Court were to affirm the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence ordered by the learned Sessions Judge is harsh and excessive, as such, it deserves to be modified. 10. On the other hand, learned HCGP sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality since the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded the findings which are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, as such, the judgment under appeal does not warrant interference by this Court. He further contended that, merely because P.Ws. 1 to 4 are closely related, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. According to him, having regard to the fact that the incident occurred on the terrace of the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the natural witnesses and no other independent witnesses could have seen the incident. Therefore, the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. He further contended that P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the persons, who came near the house of P.W. 1 on hearing the sound of screaming and by the help of public, who gathered there and also the police, the accused persons were caught red-handed near the house of P.W. 1, as such, there was no need or occasion for conducting T.I. parade, since the identity of the accused persons were known. Therefore, he contended that the judgment of conviction does not warrant interference by this Court, as such, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arise for my consideration are,— (i) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC? If so, whether the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Sessions Judge calls for modification? 12. As noticed supra, the case of the prosecution in brief was that there was an incident of robbery on the terrace of the house of P.W. 1 in the early hours of 8.8.2002 by these two appellants and they were caught red-handed there. It is also the case of the prosecution that during the acts of robbery, the two accused persons caused hurt to both P.Ws. 1 and 2. In respect of this incident, P.W. 1 lodged a report as per Ex.P.1, based on which, the case came to be registered. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 10 would clearly establish that after the incident and after the two accused persons were caught-hold, they were brought to the Police Station and in the Police Station, P.W. 1 lodged a report as per Ex.P.1. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.Ws. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 10 would clearly establish that after the incident and after the two accused persons were caught-hold, they were brought to the Police Station and in the Police Station, P.W. 1 lodged a report as per Ex.P.1. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 10 to discredit their testimony in this regard. As per the endorsement made on FIR-Ex.P.6, the same reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 3.30pm. on 8.8.2002. Thus, I find no delay either in lodging the report or the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. 13. P.Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence have consistently stated about the incident as narrated in the complaint-Ex.P.1. P.W. 1 in his oral evidence has stated that regularly he does exercises in the morning time on the terrace portion of his two storied building situated in Yeshnthpur, Bangalore and as usual in the morning of 8.8.2002 also he went to the terrace, did his regular exercises and after having shave he was about to leave the terrace portion, at that time, the two accused persons came and held him and by putting a rope around his neck, started strangulating him and forcibly they started taking him through the staircase. He has further stated that while so going through the staircase, he slipped, as a result he was relieved from the strangulation and immediately, he screamed for help and on hearing his screaming sound, his wife and daughter-P.Ws. 2 and 3 came there and immediately his daughter went-out to call the neighbourers. He has further stated that at that time, Accused No. 1 snatched the gold chain from the person of P.W. 2 and also they snatched the ear-rings, thereby injuring the ear of P.W. 2 and on seeing the people coming, the accused tried to ran away from the place. However, with the help of the neighbourers and the police who reached there, the two accused persons were caught-hold and taken to Police Station. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have corroborated this evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 no doubt is the nephew of P.W. 1 and he is also a resident of neighbourhood. However, with the help of the neighbourers and the police who reached there, the two accused persons were caught-hold and taken to Police Station. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have corroborated this evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 no doubt is the nephew of P.W. 1 and he is also a resident of neighbourhood. According to him, at about 6.30 a.m. on 8.8.2002 when he was returning to his house from the morning jogging, he saw lot of people gathered in front of the house of P.W. 1 and there he also saw the two accused persons having been caught by the neighbourers. According to him, he also saw injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 5 also said to have come near the house of P.W. 1 at about 6.30am on 8.8.2001 on the way to his house and there, he saw the two accused persons having been caught by the neighbourers and also the police. No doubt, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are closely related to each other, it is well-settled law that the testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they are closely related. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the natural witnesses, since the incident occurred on the terrace portion of their house. Therefore, one cannot expect any other independent witnesses to be present there to watch the incident. Perusal of the cross-examination of these witnesses would indicate that the defence has not been able to bring-out any circumstances to show that these witnesses have falsely implicated the accused persons. Absolutely no inconsistency or discrepancy are brought-out in their cross-examination. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses are not discredited in any way. They have withstood the text of cross-examination. Therefore, absolutely there are no reasons for discarding their testimony. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 corroborated the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to the extent of two accused persons having been caught red-handed near the house of P.W. 1. Nothing is brought-out in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to indicate that there was any kind of ill-will or animosity between the accused on the one hand and P.Ws. 1 to 3 on the other. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 it is noticed that the two accused persons were strangers to them. Nothing is brought-out in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to indicate that there was any kind of ill-will or animosity between the accused on the one hand and P.Ws. 1 to 3 on the other. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 it is noticed that the two accused persons were strangers to them. Though a bleak attempt is made in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to suggest that in the background of some ill-will, the accused have been falsely implicated, what kind of ill-will existed between them was not pointed-out. Mere suggestions in the cross-examination are not substantive evidence. During examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused have not come-out with any explanation in this regard nor they have stated any circumstances indicating their earlier acquaintance with P.W. 1 and the ill-will between them, which could be the basis for their false implication. Therefore, there is absolutely no substance in the suggestion put to P.Ws. 1 to 3 during the cross-examination with regard to the alleged ill-will. In fact, the very tenor of the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 5 indicates that the defence has harped much about non-conducting of the T.I. parade. Question of conducting T.I. parade would arise only where the assailants were strangers and they had escaped from the place. No doubt, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 indicates that the accused were strangers to them. Nevertheless, their consistent evidence establishes that both the accused persons were caught red-handed there itself and they were handed over to the police. Thus, their identity is well established. Under these circumstances, there was no need or occasion for the Investigating Officer to have arranged for T.I. Parade. Therefore, non-conducting of T.I. parade has not in any way created any dent in the case of prosecution. The evidence of two police officials namely, P.Ws. 6 and 9 who were on patrolling duty in Hoysala and Cheetha vehicles would further corroborate the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5. Their evidence indicates that while they were on patrolling duty at about 6.30am on that day, they received wireless message and immediately they came near the house of P.W. 1 and there, they saw two accused persons having been caught by the neighbourers. Their evidence corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. Their evidence indicates that while they were on patrolling duty at about 6.30am on that day, they received wireless message and immediately they came near the house of P.W. 1 and there, they saw two accused persons having been caught by the neighbourers. Their evidence corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the presence of two accused persons near the house of P.W. 1 at about 6.00 or 6.30 a.m. on 8.8.2002. There are no reasons for these two official witnesses to falsely depose against the accused. Nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to indicate that there was any kind of ill-will or animosity between them. There were no reasons for these two official witnesses to falsely implicate these two accused persons. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and 9 is consistent and cogent with regard to the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Recovery of gold chain from the possession of Accused No. 1 is established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 10 as well as the contents of Ex.P.3. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have identified MO.2 as the chain snatched from P.W. 2 by Accused No. 1. Of course, the ear-stud: MO.3 was not seized during the investigation. According to P.Ws. 1 to 3, while the accused snatched the ear-studs from the ears of P.W. 2, they fell down there itself and the same was produced before the Court. The evidence of P.W. 8-Dr. Shylaja establishes that in the morning of 8.8.2002, she examined both P.Ws. 1 and 2 in K.C. General Hospital at Bangalore and at that time, both of them were found having sustained simple injuries. According to her, P.W. 2 had sustained a lacerated wound on the left ear-pinna measuring about 1cm × ½ cm., while P.W. 1 had swelling over the upper-lip of right side and an abrasion over the neck measuring ½ cm. × ¼ cm. There is no serious cross-examination to P.W. 8 as to the presence of injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly establishes that these injuries are inflicted by these two accused persons in the process of acts of robbery. × ¼ cm. There is no serious cross-examination to P.W. 8 as to the presence of injuries on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly establishes that these injuries are inflicted by these two accused persons in the process of acts of robbery. The evidence of P.W. 10 establishes that the rope used for strangulating P.W. 1 was seized as per MO.1 from the upper portion of the portico in the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has identified MO.1 as the rope used for strangulating him. Thus, the evidence on record is consistent and cogent and it would clearly establish the complicity of these appellants in the commission of the offence of robbery and causing hurt to P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the process of commission of robbery. In my opinion, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in placing reliance on the testimony of these witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons for accepting the testimony of these witnesses. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, as such, the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 14. After finding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine. The offence under Section 394 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years and also to pay fine. The extent of punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 394 of IPC indicates its gravity. 15. It is well-settled by catena of decisions that, the sentencing policy is that an offender should be properly and adequately sentenced for the offence for which he or she is found guilty so that it would have deterrent effect on the potential offenders. In the case on hand, no doubt, two appellants appears to be young persons and they are stated to be having wife and young children. However, those factors are not relevant considerations for extending leniency. In the case on hand, no doubt, two appellants appears to be young persons and they are stated to be having wife and young children. However, those factors are not relevant considerations for extending leniency. In fact, in my considered opinion, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Sessions Judge itself is on the lower side regard being had to the punishment prescribed for the said offence. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasons for modifying the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, is hereby confirmed. 17. Accused No. 1 is already in custody and Accused No. 2, who is brought before this Court today pursuant to non-bailable warrant is also directed to be taken to custody and he is committed to prison to serve the sentence. 18. The Registry is directed to issue conviction warrant to the Jail Authorities in respect of both the appellants-accused.