JUDGMENT : 1. This present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Court, for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore dated 30.05.2008 wherein the Appellant/Accused No.2 was convicted and sentence to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the proved charge No.1, to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the proved charge No.2 and to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the proved charge No.4 and further, the trial Court ordered to run the sentence concurrently. 2. The sum and substance of this Appeal as follows: On 02.07.2007 at about 1.30 p.m. at Indian Overseas Bank Road, near Perks School at Singanallur, while the witnesses Ashwin Rangaraj was going in a Pulsar Bike on the road, the Accused No.1 and the Appellant/Accused No.2 stopped one Ashwin Rangaraj who is the PW-1 and made him to halt and committed theft of the pulsar bike worth of Rs.40,000/-. The Appellant took a knife from his hip and tried to cause him hurt. The Appellant committed theft of Pulsar Bike worth of Rs.40,000/- along with A1. Thereby accused said to have committed offences, punishable under Sections 392, 392 r/w 397 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. Further it was the case of prosecution that while committing the offence of the above said robbery, when the witnesses to tried catch them, A-1 and A-2 threatened the witnesses by showing a knife and by saying that if anyone try to reach them, they would draw their intestine and adorn the same as garland. Hence the prosecution has filed charge sheet for the offence under section 506(ii) of IPC. Thereafter, the final report filed by the respondent was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Coimbatore and assigned PRC.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the said Court. After complying with the legal formalities the case was committed to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam. Pursuant to the committal, the case was taken on file as Sessions Case No.21 of 2008 and the same was made over to the file of the learned trial Court after the framing of charge. 3. After complying with the legal formalities the case was committed to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam. Pursuant to the committal, the case was taken on file as Sessions Case No.21 of 2008 and the same was made over to the file of the learned trial Court after the framing of charge. 3. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 392, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and charges were read over to the accused and explained in Tamil for which the Accused had pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the trial was conducted elaborately by trial Court. On the side of the Prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exhibits P-1 to P-8 were marked and M.O.s 1 to 2 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was exhibited. 4. Upon considering the documents and arguments made on either side, the trial Court found guilty of the accused and the Appellant/Accused No.2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the proved charge No.1 to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment, for the proved charge No.2, to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the proved charge of No.4 and further the trial Court ordered to run concurrently. As against the same the present Appeal is filed. 5. I heard Mr. E. Kannadasan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. T.P. Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 6. On perusal of the records, this Court able to see that the PW-1 is the victim, PWs-2 to 6 said to have been eye witnesses. The perusal of records discloses that the evidences of PWs-1 to 6 are corroborated with each other. PW-1 stated in his evidence that on 02.07.2007 by around 1.30 p.m. he was riding his Pulsar Motor Bike near Perks School during which two persons came while the victim slowing near a speed breaker, the accused waylaid him and one of them displayed a knife, snatched the bike and when he refused to part with, one of them forcefully kicked him and in the result he was fell down from the bike. Thereafter the A-1 and appellant threatened the PW-1 in the presence of the witnesses PW-2 to PW-6. 7. Thereafter the A-1 and appellant threatened the PW-1 in the presence of the witnesses PW-2 to PW-6. 7. It is seen from the records that the PWs-2 to 6 were adduced the evidence in the same line and added strength to the prosecution case. Though there were small contradictions among the evidence adduced by PWs-1 to 6, merely because of the minor contradiction the evidences of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out. In all probabilities the learned trial judge has rightly come to conclusion that the 2nd accused involved in the above crime along with A-1 and they were sentenced in the above terms. This Court has taken serious view that the trial Court had recorded that the accused are having previous cases and therefore the sentence imposed by the trial Court is right one. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, though this Court is not able to see any ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court, considering overall aspect of the case and also occurrence took place in the year 2007, to meet the ends of justice it would be proper on the part of this Court to reduce the sentence alone. Therefore, this Court hereby modifies the sentence from 7 years to 1 years. With the above modification of the sentence the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The learned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate is directed to put the Appellant/Accused No.2 into judicial custody forthwith. The period undergone by the Appellant is hereby set-off. 9. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the sentence as indicated above. 10. The Legal Aid authorities attached to this Court is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as fees to the Legal Aid Advocate Mr. E. Kannadasan.