JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of conviction pronounced upon the appellant herein besides is directed against the sentence pronounced upon him for his committing offences punishable under Section 395 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6.7.2013 at about 5.10 p.m. complainant Nishant Bhardwaj reported the matter at Police Station GRPS Kangra that on 4.7.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. he alongwith his friend Tushar were coming from Pathankot to Paprola in train and when they reached Panchrukhi then accused Ajay Kumar alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Vijay Kumar, Munish Kumar and Arvind Kumar boarded their coach, one of the person stood in front of the complainant and rest of them went to switch off the light and when all the lights were switched off in the coach then one of accused Bichu (Vijay) told the complainant to stand up and started threatening him by Darat and kept in on the neck of the complainant whereas the other accused tried to beat Tushar and snatched their bags from them. The aforesaid bags of the complainant and of his friend contained their clothes and some documents alongwith Rs. 1400/- and accused Ajay Kumar took away the bags alongwith both mobile phone of the complainant and of his friend. The matter was reported to the police on an application under Ext.PW-1/A and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A charge stood put to the convict/appellant herein, by the learned trial Court, for his committing offence punishable under Section 395 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. The accused stands aggrieved by the findings of conviction recorded upon him by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Section 34 IPC, hence prefers therefrom, the instant appeal. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. The accused stands aggrieved by the findings of conviction recorded upon him by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Section 34 IPC, hence prefers therefrom, the instant appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has concerted to vigorously contend qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference rather meriting vindication. 7. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the convict/appellant submits before this Court, that since in immediate sequel to the occurrence “no” Test Identification Parade was held by the Investigating Officer concerned, rather when the convict appellant was for the first time identified in Court, hence the aforesaid manner of identification of the convict not firmly establishing the fact of his committing the alleged offences. He further submits that even the fact of PW-2 making a disclosure in his examination in chief that the Mobile set, uncontrovertedly owned by the complainant being handed over to his wife by accused Ajay alias Rimpi also not firmly establishing the identity nor the participation of the convict in the alleged offences, significantly when effect thereof is effaced by his in his cross- examination admitting the existence of inimical relations inter se him and the convict/ appellant hence obviously rendering unnatural any erection of any inference, that the accused appellant had handed over the looted mobile set of the complainant, to the wife of PW-2. The effect of the aforesaid inference is that the prosecution on anvil thereof not erasing the ill-effect of the Investigating Officer concerned in quick spontaneity to the ill-fated occurrence omitting to hold a Test Identification Parade, whereupon alone the identity besides the participation of the accused appellant, in the ill fated alleged offence, would have been firmly established. 9. Be that as it may, yet the effect of the aforesaid omission is obliterated by PW-1, during the course of his being subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the convict/appellant, his being purveyed an affirmative suggestion with e-choings therein, that in the ill-fated occurrence, he had seen Bichu alias Ajay and that the latter during the course of the ill-fated occurrence had spoken to him, suggestion whereof evinced a reply in the affirmative from PW-1. Consequently, with the counsel for the convict appellant obviously admitting the presence of convict Bichu @ Ajay at the site of occurrence, naturally renders insignificant, the ill-effect of the Investigating Officer omitting to, in quick spontaneity to the occurrence taking place, hold a TIP for his thereupon firmly establishing the identity of the convict besides his participation in the ill fated occurrence, nor obviously, want thereof not casting any doubt with respect to either the participation or the presence of the convict appellant in the relevant occurrence. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. I find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed. However, the prayer made by the counsel that the sentence of imprisonment as pronounced by the learned trial Court upon the accused, be reduced to the term of imprisonment already undergone, is accepted. The reason for accepting, the aforesaid submission is anvilled upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Shivappa and Others vs. State of Mysore, 1971 Cri. The reason for accepting, the aforesaid submission is anvilled upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Shivappa and Others vs. State of Mysore, 1971 Cri. L.J. 260, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the mandate occurring in the relevant provisions that the conviction of the accused for offences though prescribes imposition upon him sentence of imprisonment, which may extend to life, yet it also permitting Courts to reduce the apposite sentence to a term of imprisonment already undergone, in sequel, when the conviction as hereat stands imposed upon the appellant, is with respect to offences though warranting imposition of sentence of imprisonment upon him for a term which may extend upto life hence it too, in consonance herewith, is reducible to the term of imprisonment already suffered by him, more-so, when in consonance therewith, the appellant has already served sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years. 11. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to forthwith prepare the release warrants in conformity with the judgment and send the same to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. Records be sent back forthwith.