Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J. The instant appeal filed on behalf of the accused appellants under section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment and orders dated 17th/19th July, 1982 passed by Sri B.N. Mohilay, the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in ST No. 328 of 1980 whereby, the appellants were convicted under sections 394/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 Mahendra and appellant no.4 Natthan had died and their appeals stood abated. Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant no.s 2 and 3, Sri B.P. Kashyap, learned AGA for the State-respondent and have gone through the records of the sessions trial and appeals. The facts giving rising to the present appeal may be summarized as under: On 3rd January, 1979 at 5.40 Dataram gave a written report at P.S. Bachhraun stating therein that in the previous night he along with Shankar, Mahendra, Surajpal, Maum Singh, Roop Ram and Dharm Pal residents of village Arjunpur Nagariya were sleeping in his baithak. These named persons were hawkers who used to sell goods at various places. Whenever they visited his village they used to stay with him. Lantern was burning at the door, where door leaves were not affixed. At about mid night Mahendra and Chandu Badhawan armed with guns, Khuda Bux armed with lathi and one Natthan resident of village Rasulpur armed with gun came to his baithak and Mahendra had inquired who were sleeping there. When he and other persons remained silent all the four miscreants started to rob goods of the said hawkers. Meantime Shankar tried to run away and raised alarm. Mahendra shot him from his gun which struck on the hip of Shankar, who fell down. At that they raised alarm. Miscreants had also beaten with danda Roopram and Dharmpal. Before villagers could come miscreants made their good escape. He and the said hawkers had identified the miscreants in the light of lantern. They had looted clothes, cosmetic articles, scales and weights and one wrist watch. At this check FIR was scribed, case crime no. 2/1979 under section 394, 397 IPC was registered, investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sri R.S. Tomar who immediately started the investigation and examined the first informant Dataram, injured Shankar and Dharmpal. They had looted clothes, cosmetic articles, scales and weights and one wrist watch. At this check FIR was scribed, case crime no. 2/1979 under section 394, 397 IPC was registered, investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sri R.S. Tomar who immediately started the investigation and examined the first informant Dataram, injured Shankar and Dharmpal. Thereafter reached the spot, took samples of blood stained and plain earth, found lantern at the appointed place in working condition. After conclusion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against all the four named accused persons. All the four accused stood for trial before the Court of Session, where they were charged under section 394 read with section 397 IPC. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of trial they were found guilty. Consequently convicted and sentenced as above. Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the surviving appellants has submitted that it is a night occurrence. The sole source of light the alleged lantern was not produced in the court. Therefore, existence of lantern is doubtful. He further submits that enmity of Dataram with the appellants is admitted and it was Dataram who with the help of roaming hawkers had concocted a false case against the present appellant. He further submits that it is fake case. This fact can be gathered from the fact that no goods or articles belonging to Dataram were looted. He further submits that though three out of four alleged miscreants were claimed to be of the same village but they did not take precaution to cover their faces. This fact belies the veracity of prosecution version. In the last he has submitted that at present age of appellant no.2 Chandu is 78 years and age of appellant no.3 Khuda Bux is 77 years. On the basis of their advanced age he prays for reduction in sentence. On behalf of the State-respondent these arguments have been repelled and it has been submitted that regarding non production of lantern Data Ram P.W.1 has specifically stated that before one year of his examination in court it had broken down. For this reason the learned AGA submits that there is justification for non production. In reference to second argument he submits that injured witnesses had no enmity with the appellant. They belonged to another village and another district. For this reason the learned AGA submits that there is justification for non production. In reference to second argument he submits that injured witnesses had no enmity with the appellant. They belonged to another village and another district. There is no reason that they would falsely depose against four innocent persons. In reference to third argument, the learned AGA submits that the robbery took place in the baithak where hawkers were sitting and their goods were kept. It is natural that owner of the house would not keep his household goods in the baithak, therefore, there is no improbability that no good/article belonging to Dataram was looted. In reference to 4th argument he submits that when the appellants had planned to loot strangers before going to commit robbery they might not have felt any need to cover their faces. In the last he has submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. Cogent reasons have been given in support thereof. The appeal has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. In reference to my obligation as an appellate court hearing appeal against conviction, I would like to refresh my mind by recalling the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat [1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 222]. Para-4 of the judgment reads as under: "4. Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at the bar. Let alone, any discussion of the evidence, we do not find that the High Court even cared to notice the evidence led in the case. None of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been noticed, much less considered and discussed. The judgment is cryptic and we are at loss to understand as to what prevailed with the High Court to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever briefly depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. On a plain requirement of justice, the High Court while dealing with a first appeal against conviction and sentence is expected to, howsoever briefly depending upon the facts of the case, consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the submissions raised at the bar. If it fails to do so, it apparently fails in the discharge of one of its essential jurisdiction under its appellate powers. In view of the infirmities pointed out by us, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained." In the case of Lal Mandi, Appellant v. State of West Bengal, Respondent [1995 CRI.L.J.2659 (Supreme Court), 2659], the Apex Court in para-5 of the report has given caution to the High Court reminding its duty in the matter of hearing of appeal against conviction. It would be gainful to reproduce the observation made in para-5 of the report, extracted below: "5. To say the least, the approach of the High Court is totally fallacious. In an appeal against conviction, the Appellate Court has the duty to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of the evidence, the benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. It is not correct to suggest that the "Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with" the order of conviction where the trial court has found the evidence as reliable and that it cannot substitute the findings of the Sessions Judge by its own, if it arrives at a different conclusion on reassessment of the evidence. The observation made in Tota Singh's case, which was an appeal against acquittal, have been misunderstood and mechanically applied. Though, the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the considerations which weigh with it while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and in an appeal against conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. The presumption of innocence of accused which gets strengthened on his acquittal is not available on his conviction. An appellate court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on the record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An Appellate Court fails in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on the record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence." Before entering into the merits of the argument I think it is expedient to place on record broad features of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. In documentary evidence on behalf of the prosecution besides of her police paper written report Ext. Ka-1, FIR Ext-Ka6, Copy of the report of the general diary Ext. Ka-7, Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth Ext. Ka-2, Injury report of Shanker Pal Ext. Ka-3, Injury report of Roop Ram Banjare Ext. Ka-4, Injury report Dharm Pal Ext. Ka-5, Site plan with index Ext. Ka-8, charge-sheets Ext. Ka-9 and Ext. Ka-10 were filed. In oral evidence 7 witnesses were examined. Summary of their testimonies is as under: Dataram P.W.1 is the first informant. He has proved the written report Ext. Ka-1 and memo of taking samples of blood stained and plain earth Ext. Ka-2. He has reiterated the facts stated in the first information report. Shankar P.W.2 is one of the hawker. He is an injured witness. He has supported the prosecution version as contained in the FIR. Dharmpal P.W.3 is the injured witness. He has reiterated the version as stated by Shankar P.W.2. Dr. Satish Kumar Badal, P.W.4 is the medical officer. He on 3rd January, 1979 at PHC, Dhanaura has medically examined Shankar, Roop Ram and Dharmpal. He has prepared their injury reports and proved them as Ext. Ka-3 and Ka-4. Dharmpal P.W.3 is the injured witness. He has reiterated the version as stated by Shankar P.W.2. Dr. Satish Kumar Badal, P.W.4 is the medical officer. He on 3rd January, 1979 at PHC, Dhanaura has medically examined Shankar, Roop Ram and Dharmpal. He has prepared their injury reports and proved them as Ext. Ka-3 and Ka-4. He medically examined Shankar on that day at 7.45 A.M. In the injury report he recorded the following injuries: (1) One lacerated wound on right hip, 6 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm obliquely measured, skin edges ragged. Blackening and Scorching were present. Tissues were divided unevenly. Shape of the wound was uneven. No wound of exit was found. (2) One abrasion on lateral aspect of right elbow joint, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. (3) Multiple contusions from left side of back in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm, 8 cm. below tip of shoulder. For injury no.1 x-ray was advised. According to the witness injury no.2 and 3 were simple. Their duration was upto 12 hours. Injury no.1 was caused by bullet. Injury nos. 2 and 3 were caused by hard object. These injuries could have been sustained in the mid night of 2/3-1-1979. He medically examined Roop Ram at 7.55 A.M. on that day and recorded the following injuries in Ext. Ka-4. (1) One lacerated wound on scalp 2 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep, 14 cm. above from the left ear. (2) One abrasion on left elbow joint posteriorly, 1 cm. x .5 cm. According to him both the injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object. Injury no.2 could have been caused by friction. Duration was between 0 to 12 hours. They could have been caused in the mid night of 2nd/3rd January, 1979 on the same day at 8.10 A.M. On the examination on the person of Dharmpal he could not find any external mark of injury. The injured complaint pain in left arm. Constable Ram Kumar Sharma P.W.5 on 3.1.1979 took these injured to PHC Dhanaura for medical examination. Constable Girdhari Singh P.W.6 is the scribe of check FIR. He has proved check FIR Ext. Ka-3. Copy of the report of the general diary Ext. Ka-7. S.I. R.S. Tomar P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. He has given details of steps taken during the course of investigation. He has proved the site plan Ext. Constable Girdhari Singh P.W.6 is the scribe of check FIR. He has proved check FIR Ext. Ka-3. Copy of the report of the general diary Ext. Ka-7. S.I. R.S. Tomar P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. He has given details of steps taken during the course of investigation. He has proved the site plan Ext. Ka-8, memo of taking of samples of blood stained and plain earth Ext. Ka-2, charge-sheet Ext. Ka-9 and Ka-10. Before the trial court defence was of simple denial and false prosecution on account of enmity. After prosecution evidence statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused persons denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses. According to deceased appellant Mahendra he had enmity with Dataram. Witnesses were of the patti of Dataram. Rest of the accused persons also reiterated the said facts. In the defence no evidence was given. Barring last argument the arguments advanced on behalf of the surviving appellants relate to appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Judge, therefore, proper course to examine the merits of these arguments is to re-examine and re-assess the evidence of prosecution, specially in the light of the grounds taken in the memo of appeals and arguments advanced in support thereof. Dataram, P.W.1 had sustained no injury but he is the first informant and considering the distance of 8 km from his village to the police station, he had lodged the FIR promptly and took the injured for treatment, therefore, his presence at the time of occurrence appears to be natural. The occurrence took place in his baithak in the mid night. For this reason his presence is also probable. I have no hesitation in holding him to be natural and probable witness. The next question is whether he had an opportunity to see the occurrence. The only objection raised on behalf of the appellant is that there was no light at the time of occurrence because the lantern was not produced, in the light of which the witnesses claim to have seen occurrence and identified the miscreants. Since he had given reason for non production of lantern and source of light was mentioned in the promptly lodged FIR, I am of the opinion that at the time of occurrence lantern was burning and in its light the witnesses had opportunity to see the occurrence and identify the miscreants. Since he had given reason for non production of lantern and source of light was mentioned in the promptly lodged FIR, I am of the opinion that at the time of occurrence lantern was burning and in its light the witnesses had opportunity to see the occurrence and identify the miscreants. During cross examination his testimony remained unshaken. One objection against his truthfulness has been taken on behalf of the appellants is that he claims that clothes of injured Shanker were stained with blood and this witness claims to have taken those clothes to police station and produced them before the investigating officer but those clothes were not taken into possession by the investigating officer. Whether on the basis of lapse on the investigating officer testimony of the witnesses can be discarded. To this question my answer is that the witness had done all, which could have been done by any law abiding person. He could not be blamed for omission of the investigating officer, therefore, on the lapse of investigating officer I am not inclined to reject his testimony. My opinion is fortified by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh (2005)7 SCC 40 . Now the question remains whether on account of previous litigation with Dataram evidence of this witness can be disbelieved. The witness has admitted that his motor of tube-well was stolen. He had lodged FIR against Ram Kumar, brother of deceased appellant-Mahendra. His frank admission of this fact persuades me that on account of that theft had the witness was deposing falsely, he would not have given a straight answer to this question. I think he is a truthful witness. Shanker P.W.2 is an injured witness. He received bullet injury on his hip. This fact even has not disputed by the defence. He is also one of the hawkers whose goods were looted. He is a natural and probable witness. In the light of lantern he had opportunity to see the occurrence. He has no enmity with the appellants. He has withstood the test of cross examination successfully. I do not find any major contradiction in his testimony. In my opinion he is a trustworthy witness. My view is fortified by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009 (6) Supreme 526 . He has withstood the test of cross examination successfully. I do not find any major contradiction in his testimony. In my opinion he is a trustworthy witness. My view is fortified by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009 (6) Supreme 526 . Dharmpal P.W.3 is also one of the hawkers who was sleeping in the baithak and his goods were looted though he sustained no visible injury but considering the fact that he was sleeping with his friends at the baithak of Dataram his presence at the spot at the relevant time is natural and probable. He had opportunity to see the occurrence and identify the miscreants. He withstood the test of cross examination successfully. He is an independent witness. His testimony inspires confidence of the Court. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature. While reassessing and re-examining the evidential value of the witnesses all the grounds raised in support of the appeal have been dealt with and found without substance. The last argument that appellants are of advanced age would not help the surviving appellants because charge under section 394 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. Causing bullet injury during the commission of robbery also proves the charge under section 397 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Under section 397 IPC seven years' rigorous imprisonment is minimum sentence. For this reason I do not think any interference can be made in the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge. In view of above, the appeal has no substance. Conviction and sentences of appellant nos. 2 and 3 are hereby affirmed and their appeal is dismissed. Appellants are in jail. They shall serve out their sentences.