JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.304 of 2007, dated 28.11.2007 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Madurai, convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 I.P.C and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are as follows:- P.Ws.1 to 3 are related to each other. On 30.04.2005, at about 9.00 a.m, when P.Ws.1 to 3 were walking in Koodalpudur ? Anaiyur road, the accused snatched a gold chain, weighing about 3 sovereigns from the neck of P.W.1/defacto complainant and P.Ws.2 and 3 were proceeding ahead of P.W.1. On hearing the sound of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 with the help of others, chased the accused and caught him. P.W.4 was one of the public standing in the place of occurrence. P.W.5 is the Constable, attached to Koodalpudur Police Station. When he was on patrol duty, on information, he went to the place of occurrence and caught the accused with the help of public. Then, he sent the accused to the Police Station along with P.W.3. P.W.6 is the mahazar witness. P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Koodalpudur Police Station. While he was on duty on 30.04.2005, at about 10.15 a.m, P.Ws.1 to 3 appeared before the Police Station, produced the accused along with the chain and P.W.1 also gave a complaint. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, he registered a case in Cr.No.309 of 2005 under Section 392 I.P.C. The complaint given by P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.4. The first information report is marked as Ex.P.5. He arrested the accused. Thereafter, P.W.8, who was the Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Circle, took up the case in Cr.No.309 of 2005 for investigation and recorded the confession of the accused. Pursuant to the same, he seized the material objects related to some other Cr.No.627/04. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and laid a final report against the accused under Sections 392 r/w 397 I.P.C and 506(ii) I.P.C on 23.05.2005. 3. Pursuant to the same, he seized the material objects related to some other Cr.No.627/04. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and laid a final report against the accused under Sections 392 r/w 397 I.P.C and 506(ii) I.P.C on 23.05.2005. 3. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 7 were marked besides M.O.1. On the side of the appellant, no oral and documentary evidence adduced. On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused person denied charges. Based on the evidences and materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty as stated supra and convicted him. Aggrieved over the same, the accused has come out with this Criminal Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused and material Object was also not recovered from the accused. Hence, there is no legal evidence to convict the accused and hence, prays for acquittal. 6. Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 have clearly spoken about the robbery committed by the accused. The accused was immediately caught red-handed and handed over the Police. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved the case. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be decided as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are relatives. P.W.1 is the sister of P.W.2 and P.W.2 is the brother's wife of P.W.3. On 30.04.2005 at about 9.00 p.m, when P.Ws.2 and 3 were proceeding in the road ahead of P.W.1, one person snatched the chain from P.W.1. On hearing her hue and cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 immediately rushed to the spot and chased the accused and immediately caught him red-handedly with the help of public. P.W.4 was one of the persons standing there in the place of occurrence. P.W5 was the Patrol duty Constable and sent the accused to the police Station. P.W.6 was standing in the place of occurrence and he put his signature in the observation mahazar prepared by the police. P.W.4 was one of the persons standing there in the place of occurrence. P.W5 was the Patrol duty Constable and sent the accused to the police Station. P.W.6 was standing in the place of occurrence and he put his signature in the observation mahazar prepared by the police. Thereafter, the case was registered by P.W.7-Sub Inspector of Police and investigation was proceeded by P.W.8-Inspector of Police and final report has been filed. 9. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 have not identified the accused specifically, in the substantive evidence, in one voice, they have told that robbery was committed by the accused and that person was also handed over to the Police. Evidence of the Investigating Officer also clearly indicates that the accused was handed over the Police by P.W.3 on the same day. Merely because P.Ws.2 and 3 have not identified the accused in the substantive evidence, the alleged act of the accused cannot be erased. He was also caught red-handed and immediately handed over to the Police. This fact has been clearly established from the records. 10. Though a defence was taken on the side of the accused that some other person was handed over to the Police station, and not this accused, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to the effect that there was a robbery and the person was caught red-handed and immediately handed over to the Police cannot be disbelieved. P.Ws.7 and 8 have clearly spoken about the factum of handing over the accused and chain to the police by P.Ws.1 to 3. These facts would clearly show that the accused has committed robbery. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that since the prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused, he should be given benefit of doubt, has no legs to stand. 11. On a careful scanning of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is seen that though P.W.1 has stated that the accused has used a knife, the prosecution has not recovered the same. P.W.2 has not spoken about the use of any deadly weapon by the accused. Further, the prosecution has not produced the alleged knife said to have been used by the accused. Therefore, in view of the above, the charge under Section 397 I.P.C cannot be pressed into service. P.W.2 has not spoken about the use of any deadly weapon by the accused. Further, the prosecution has not produced the alleged knife said to have been used by the accused. Therefore, in view of the above, the charge under Section 397 I.P.C cannot be pressed into service. To convict a person under Section 397 I.P.C, the prosecution must establish that the offender, at the time of committing robbery, must use the deadly weapon. In the absence of evidence to show that the accused used deadly weapon, the charge under Section 397 I.P.C will not be attracted. Similarly P.Ws.2 and 3 have not stated in their evidence that they were threatened by the accused. Hence, the charge under Section 506(ii) I.P.C against the accused also goes. Therefore, the charge under Section 392 I.P.C against the accused is alone clearly established. Hence, in the absence of any evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction rendered by the trial Court is liable to be modified. 12. In the result, Crl.A. [MD].No.50 of 2008 is partly allowed; the conviction imposed on the appellant/sole accused, by Judgment dated 28.11.2007 made in S.C.No.304 of 2007, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai, is set aside in respect of the charges under Sections 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C alone. Accordingly, this Court reduces the punishment from 7 years R.I to 1 year R.I. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused is given set off. The trial court is directed to ensure whether the accused has already undergone one year period of sentence or not. If so, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.