JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 252/07 registered at Police Station Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, under Section 341, 324, 397, 323 & 34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 9.8.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., complainant Bhagwan Singh was travelling on his motorcycle. Complainant tried to switch on the head light of his motorcycle but the same was out of order. Complainant stopped the motorcycle on one side and was examining the switch with the help of his mobile phone. In the meantime three persons came on a motorcycle from Suwasa side and stopped the same near the complainant. The said persons inquired from the complainant as to whether there was no petrol in his motorcycle. Complainant replied that there was something wrong with the head light of the motorcycle. One of the person gave a fist blow near the eye of the complainant. As a result complainant fell down. Complainant got up and one person gave a knife blow on his left arm. One person took out a revolver and placed the same on the chest of the complainant. One person took out the mobile phone and purse from the pocket of the complainant. The purse of the complainant contained Rs. 3,000/-. The said persons also took away the bag of the complainant containing important documents. The said persons also gave another knife blow on the left thigh of the complainant and left the spot. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellants and accused Hanuman. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, prayed that they were innocent. 5. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 9.4.2009 acquitted accused Hanuman of the charge framed against him under Section 411 IPC. Appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 323, 324, 341, 397/34 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 6. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned State Counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 7. Complainant, while appearing in the witness box as P.W.8, has duly supported the prosecution story. Complainant deposed that he was got medically examined. He further deposed that he had participated in identification parade conducted during investigation and had identified the appellants. 7. Complainant, while appearing in the witness box as P.W.8, has duly supported the prosecution story. Complainant deposed that he was got medically examined. He further deposed that he had participated in identification parade conducted during investigation and had identified the appellants. 8. P.W.1, Dr. Karn Lal Meena deposed that on 9.8.2007 he had medically examined the complainant and had found three injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature. The said witness proved the medical report Ex. P.1. 9. P.W.3 Shweta Gupta deposed that on a request received for identification parade, to establish the identity of the accused by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, she was entrusted to conduct the identification parade. On 28.11.2007 she went to Central Jail, Bundi. Complainant duly identified the appellants. The said witness proved the report Ex. P.10. 10. Prosecution also examined the witnesses who deposed with regard to investigation conducted by them. 11. Thus, in the present case as per the prosecution story appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant and had taken away his mobile phone, purse and bag. Appellants were arrested in another case and they stated that they committed the offence in the present case. Thereafter, appellants participated in an identification parade, which has been duly proved by P.W.3. Appellants were identified by the complainant. The fact that the appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant is corroborated by medical evidence. Complainant had no ill-will or enmity against the appellants to have falsely involved them in this case. Thus, from the statements of the complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.3 prosecution had been successful in establishing its case. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur shall pay necessary fees to Dr. Mithlesh Kumar Advocate as per norms.