JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year more. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant and co-accused Kartick Santra and Bimal Sarkar was to the effect that on 16.07.2011 at about 10 p.m. while PW 1, Namita Das was returning from her father’s house at Naihati to Srirampore in the ladies compartment of down Katwa – Howrah local train, a person aged about 25-30 years boarded the said compartment and by showing knife had snatched the gold bracelet, earrings and cash of Rs.500/- from her possession. The miscreant also snatched one pair of gold earrings, voter card, ATM card, Samsung Mobile and ladies purse from another fellow passenger Silki Marjit, PW 6. Her mother Jaya Mondal, PW 5 was also present at the place of occurrence. 3. First Information Report was lodged by PW 1 and in the course of investigation the appellant was put for test identification parade. The seized articles were seized pursuant to the leading statement of the appellant from the shop of the co-accused Kartick Santra and Bimal Sarkar. Charge-sheet was filed under Sections 392/411/413 against the appellant and under Section 411 against Kartick Santra and Bimal Sarkar. 4. Charges were framed and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In conclusion of trial, the trail Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid, however, the trial Judge acquitted the other co-accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that PW 1 was unable to identify the appellant in Court. PW 6 also failed to identify the appellant during test identification parade and identification of PW 6 suffered from various infirmities and the seized articles have not been properly identified. 7. Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing with Ms. Hossain argued that the evidence of PW 1, 5 and 6 clearly established that the appellant had committed robbery with a knife which is a deadly weapon and the stolen articles were recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant. 8. PW 1 is the de facto complainant in the instant case. Hossain argued that the evidence of PW 1, 5 and 6 clearly established that the appellant had committed robbery with a knife which is a deadly weapon and the stolen articles were recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant. 8. PW 1 is the de facto complainant in the instant case. She deposed that a person aged about 25-26 years, entered the ladies compartment of Katwa Howrah Local train which was travelling from Bandle to Howrah and putting a knife at her throat he had snatched a gold pala, bangles, earrings and cash of Rs.500/-. A lady along with her daughter was sitting across her and the mobile phone and purse of her daughter were also snatched away. The miscreant got down from the train at Chinsurah Railway Station. On the next day she lodged complaint at Bandle GRPS. She proved the written complaint (Exhibit 1/1). Although she identified the appellant during test identification parade, she was unable to identify him in Court. 9. PW 5 and 6 are her co-travellers. PW 6 stated that the miscreant boarded the train and snatched away her purse, ATM cards and mobile phone. The miscreant got down at Chinsurah Railway Station. She identified the mobile phone seized by the police officer under a seizure list. She identified the appellant in test identification parade. She identified the appellant in Court also. She identified the knife which was used by the appellant. 10. PW 5 corroborated the evidence of PW 6. PW 5 also identified the appellant in Court though she had not identified him during test identification parade. 11. PW 19 is the investigating officer in the instant case. He deposed that on the leading statement of the appellant he raided the gold shop of Bimal Sarkar where the appellant stated that gold ornaments were deposited and melted into solid gold. He arrested Bimal Sarkar. He seized sale price of the gold ornaments, i.e. Rs.8,500/-, mobile phone and knife from the in law’s house of the appellant under a seizure list (Exhibit 5). The mobile phone seized by him was identified by PW 6. Cash memo produced by PW 6 with regard to the mobile phone was seized under a seizure list (Exhibit 3). 12. PW 8 to 12 are witnesses to the aforesaid seizure. 13. The mobile phone seized by him was identified by PW 6. Cash memo produced by PW 6 with regard to the mobile phone was seized under a seizure list (Exhibit 3). 12. PW 8 to 12 are witnesses to the aforesaid seizure. 13. From the evidence on record although I find that PW 1 was unable to identify the appellant in Court, PW 5 and 6 have identified the appellant as the person who had boarded the train and committed the robbery. Mobile phone being seized from his possession was identified in course of investigation by PW 6. 14. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, I am inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 15. Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent. Accordingly, I am inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon him and I direct that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 1 year more. 16. The appeal is thus disposed of. 17. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during the investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against substantive sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. The lower court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action. 19. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. I agree.