JUDGMENT : A.M. Badar, J. 1. The appellant/accused no. 1, by this appeal, is challenging the judgment and order dated 6th October 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2013, thereby convicting him and the co-accused of offences punishable under Sections 392, 342 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no. 1 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused no. 1 along with co-accused and his resultant conviction, can be summarized thus: (a) First Informant PW4 Shashiram Mulik was having a jewellery shop named as 'Sachin Jewellers' at front portion of his residential bungalow "Suyog" situated at Basveshwar Housing Society, Mali Vasti, Sangli. He used to run that shop with assistance of his son PW5 Sachin Mulik and his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. (b) The incident of robbery allegedly took place at the residential house as well as jewellery shop of PW4 Shashiram Mulik at about 10.30 p.m. of 13th March 2012. After closing the shop at 8.30 p.m. of that day, PW4 Shashiram Mulik, his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik and their son PW5 Sachin Mulik were at their bungalow. At about 10.30 p.m., robbers knocked the door of their bungalow. They informed the inmates of the bungalow that they are friends of PW5 Sachin Mulik. That is how, PW4 Shashiram Mulik opened the door of the bungalow. Four robbers then secured their entry in the bungalow of PW4 Shashiram Mulik. They were armed with a weapon like sickle. One of the robbers pushed PW4 Shashiram Mulik and caused his fall on person of PW8 Sharada Mulik. Hearing the abuses given by robbers, PW5 Sachin Mulik came from the bedroom to the hall of the bungalow and noticed four robbers armed with sickles. They were armed with a weapon like sickle. One of the robbers pushed PW4 Shashiram Mulik and caused his fall on person of PW8 Sharada Mulik. Hearing the abuses given by robbers, PW5 Sachin Mulik came from the bedroom to the hall of the bungalow and noticed four robbers armed with sickles. They assaulted PW5 Sachin Mulik. Thereafter, three robbers took PW5 Sachin Mulik to the jewellery shop located in the front portion of the bungalow and looted gold and silver ornaments from the shop. Those robbers then again returned to the bungalow with PW5 Sachin Mulik and snatched gold chain and ring from PW4 Shashiram Mulik. By entering in the bedroom, the robbers then looted gold and silver ornaments from the locker. They took mobile handsets during the course of robbery. Thereafter, they gagged mouths of PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik by cloth and tied them by tearing bedsheets for the said purpose. Along with the loot, the robbers decamped by latching the front door of the bungalow from outside. (c) After sometime, PW4 Shashiram Mulik managed to free himself and then he freed his son PW5 Sachin Mulik and his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. PW5 Sachin Mulik then gave call to PW3 Shantaram Mane who was residing in the neighbourhood. Said PW3 Shantaram Mane then opened the front door of the bungalow. PW5 Sachin Mulik then telephonically called his friend PW7 Sunil Lambe and asked him to inform the incident of robbery to police. Accordingly, police were informed about the incident. Within a short span of time, PW7 Sunil Lambe as well as police visited Suyog bungalow where the robbery took place. (d) As PW5 Sachin Mulik was injured in the incident, he was sent to the Civil Hospital, Sangli, for treatment. PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav examined him. PW4 Shashiram Mulik lodged report with Police Station Vishram Baug, Sangli, which has resulted in registration of Crime No. 38 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 394, 452, 347, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The spot of the incident came to be inspected in presence of PW3 Shantaram Mane and PW7 Sunil Lambe. Spot panchnama Exhibit 66 came to be recorded in their presence on 13th March 2012 itself. The spot of the incident came to be inspected in presence of PW3 Shantaram Mane and PW7 Sunil Lambe. Spot panchnama Exhibit 66 came to be recorded in their presence on 13th March 2012 itself. (e) During the course of investigation, the appellant/accused No. 1 and other accused came to be arrested at Pune by Crime Branch. Looted ornaments were recovered at their instance and PW4 Shashiram Mulik and PW5 Sachin Mulik were called to inspect and identify those ornaments. They were then arrested in the subject crime. On the basis of disclosure statement (Exhibit 59) of accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh made in presence of PW1 Shashikant Kudache, four sickles came to be recovered vide Panchnama Exhibit 60. Scooter allegedly used in the crime in question came to be seized at the instance of accused no. 3 Vijay Koli on the basis of disclosure statement Exhibit 62 vide Recovery Panchnama Exhibit 63 in presence of PW2 Narayan Pawar. On the basis of voluntary disclosure statement of accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh, gold ingot weighing 430 grams came to be seized from PW15 Bharat Shawn. Similarly, silver ornaments, silver brick and some cash came to be recovered from the house of Vishal Shinde. On the basis of disclosure statement Exhibit 75 made by appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal, gold ornaments came to be recovered from his house vide Recovery Panchnama Exhibit 76. PW7 Sunil Lambe was the panch witness for this recovery. (f) Accused nos. 1 to 3 were subjected to Test Identification Parade on 23rd April 2012 and in the Test Identification Parade held by PW12 Swati Shende, Special Executive Magistrate, PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik identified them. During the course of investigation, the accused no. 4 came to be arrested on 30th November 2012 and he was also subjected to Test Identification Parade on 20th December 2012 before PW14 Mangal Malap, Special Executive Magistrate. He also came to be identified by PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik during the course of that Test Identification Parade. On completion of investigation against accused persons, charge-sheets came to be filed against them. (g) The learned trial court framed Charge for offences punishable under Sections 394, 398, 452, 347, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On completion of investigation against accused persons, charge-sheets came to be filed against them. (g) The learned trial court framed Charge for offences punishable under Sections 394, 398, 452, 347, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (h) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused persons, the prosecution has examined in all sixteen witnesses. PW1 Shashikant Kudache is the panch witness for recovery of sickles at the instance of accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh. Exhibit 59 is his Memorandum Statement and Exhibit 60 is the Recovery Panchnama. PW2 Narayan Pawar is the panch witness to the Memorandum Statement Exhibit 62 and resultant Recovery Panchnama Exhibit 63, by which, at the instance of accused no. 3 Vijay Koli, a scooter allegedly used for commission of robbery came to be seized from Vishnu Anna Fruit Market of Sangli. PW3 Shantaram Mane is the panch witness to the Spot panchnama Exhibit 66. PW4 Shashiram Mulik is the victim of the crime in question, who lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 64 resulting in registration of the subject crime. PW5 Sachin Mulik and his mother PW8 Sharada Mulik are eye witnesses of the incident in question. PW6 Vikrantsing Rana is the panch witness to the Memorandum Statement of accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh and resultant Recovery Panchnama under which gold ingot came to be seized from PW15 Bharat Shawn and silver came to be seized from house of Vishal Shinde. PW7 Sunil Lambe is friend of PW5 Sachin Mulik. He acted as panch witness to Spot Panchnama Exhibit 66 as well as witness to the Memorandum Statement Exhibit 75 of appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal and resultant Recovery Panchnama Exhibit 76. PW9 Vijaykumar Satpute is another panch to the Memorandum Statement and Recovery Panchnama at the instance of accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh. PW10 Satish Sonavane is the panch witness for Memorandum Statement and Recovery Panchnama at the instance of accused no. 3 Vijay Koli. PW11 Sharad Jambhale, Senior Police Inspector, had investigated the subject crime. PW12 Swati Shende, Special Executive Magistrate, had conducted Test Identification Parade of accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 23rd April 2012. PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav of the Civil Hospital, Sangli, had examined PW5 Sachin Mulik on 14th March 2012. 3 Vijay Koli. PW11 Sharad Jambhale, Senior Police Inspector, had investigated the subject crime. PW12 Swati Shende, Special Executive Magistrate, had conducted Test Identification Parade of accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 23rd April 2012. PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav of the Civil Hospital, Sangli, had examined PW5 Sachin Mulik on 14th March 2012. PW14 Mangal Malap, Special Executive Magistrate, had conducted Test Identification Parade in respect of accused no. 4 Gopal Gedam. PW15 Bharat Shawn is a jeweller who had purchased the looted ornaments from accused no. 2 Parvez Shaikh and from whom gold ingot came to be seized by police. PW16 Dhanaraj Prajapati is a jeweller who had purchased looted ornaments from accused no. 4 Gopal Gedam. However, evidence of this witness was partly recorded and thereafter he was not called by the prosecution nor was he subjected to cross-examination by the defence. (i) The defence of the appellant/accused no. 1 as well as the co-accused was that of total denial. (j) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant/accused no. 1 as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment alongwith the co-accused. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused no. 1. He vehemently argued that no recovery of any looted ornaments is proved against appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal. Only evidence against him is the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW12 Swati Shende-Special Executive Magistrate. The same was conducted on 23rd April 2012 and the dummies used in this Test Identification Parade were not of the same age. At the time of arrest of the appellant/accused no. 1, the First Informant/PW 4 Shashiram Malik and his son PW 5 Sachin Mulik were present. So that Test Identification Parade is of no avail to the prosecution. Therefore, this evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution. It is further argued that panch witnesses used in the subject crime by the prosecution are interested witnesses. PW3 Shantaram Mane is the neighbour whereas PW7 Sunil Lambe is the friend of the prosecuting party. Hence, their evidence is not reliable. It is further argued that PW4 Shashiram Mulik or his son PW5 Sachin Mulik had not produced any Stock Register, Bills, Shop license etc. to bring on record the quantum of loot. PW3 Shantaram Mane is the neighbour whereas PW7 Sunil Lambe is the friend of the prosecuting party. Hence, their evidence is not reliable. It is further argued that PW4 Shashiram Mulik or his son PW5 Sachin Mulik had not produced any Stock Register, Bills, Shop license etc. to bring on record the quantum of loot. No broken glasses were found were found on the spot of the incident. PW5 Sachin Mulik had not called police after the incident. PW4 Shashiram Mulik had not seen the incident which took place at the shop. It is further argued that no prosecution witness has attributed any role to the appellant/accused no. 1 in the crime in question. According to the appellant, the FIR was for robbery of Rs. 1.28 lacs but the First Informant deposed that the loot costed him Rs. 7.65 lacs. 4. The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the resultant sentence. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the record and proceedings including oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. At the outset, let us examine whether evidence of PW4 Shashiram Mulik, his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik and that of his son PW5 Sachin Mulik establishes the fact that gold and silver ornaments came to be looted from their shop as well as house in the night hours of 13th March 2012. Evidence of these three witnesses goes to show that they were running a jewellery shop named as 'Sachin Jewellers' in the front portion of their bungalow named as Suyog in Basveshwar Housing Society of Sangli. Congruous version of all these three witnesses goes to show that when they were at their bungalow after closing the jewellery shop, at about 10.30 p.m. of 13th March 2012, front door of their bungalow came to be knocked. Visitors told that they are friends of PW5 Sachin Mulik. It is seen from evidence of these witnesses that then PW4 Shashiram Mulik opened the door of the bungalow and thereafter four robbers secured entry in the bungalow. They were armed with sickles. As stated by PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik, then one of the robbers gave push to PW4 Shashiram Mulik, who fell on person of his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. They were armed with sickles. As stated by PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik, then one of the robbers gave push to PW4 Shashiram Mulik, who fell on person of his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. One of the robbers put sickle on neck of PW4 Shashiram Mulik and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the robbers assaulted PW5 Sachin Mulik and took him to the jewellery shop. As stated by this witness and more particularly PW5 Sachin Mulik, the robbers took everything from the shop which was having stock of gold and silver jewellery. They, then, returned to the bungalow. Congruous evidence of these three witnesses shows that then robbers snatched gold chain and ring from PW4 Shashiram Mulik and by going in the bedroom, they took all gold and silver ornaments from the locker. Thereafter, by gagging mouths of these three witnesses, they were tied by pieces of bedsheets. All robbers then left the bungalow by closing the door from outside. 7. PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik then testified that PW4 Shashiram Mulik was the first to free himself. He then untied his son PW5 Sachin Mulik and wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. Their evidence shows that PW5 Sachin Mulik then went to the roof of the bungalow and gave a call to PW3 Shantaram Mane. It is seen from evidence of these witnesses and that of PW3 Shantaram Mane that then PW3 Shantaram Mane opened the door of the bungalow. PW5 Sachin Mulik testified that he tried to make a telephone call to police, but was unable to do so, and therefore, he telephonically called his friend PW7 Sunil Lambe and requested him to inform the police about the incident of robbery. That is how, PW7 Sunil Lambe came to his bungalow and then police also came on the spot. 8. This evidence coming on record from PW3 Shantaram Mane, PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik, PW7 Sunil Lambe and PW8 Sharada Mulik is not shattered at all in the cross-examination. It is seen that during the course of investigation, police had drawn Spot Panchnama Exhibit 66, soon after the incident. The Spot Panchnama shows that boxes of jewellery were found scattered in the shop. Drawers of the counter were found in open condition because of the robbery. No gold or silver ornaments were found in the jewellery shop. It is seen that during the course of investigation, police had drawn Spot Panchnama Exhibit 66, soon after the incident. The Spot Panchnama shows that boxes of jewellery were found scattered in the shop. Drawers of the counter were found in open condition because of the robbery. No gold or silver ornaments were found in the jewellery shop. Similarly, locker in the bedroom was found empty. Pieces of bedsheets were found lying on the spot. There were stains of blood on the spot of the incident. PW3 Shantaram Mane, panch witness to the Spot Panchnama so also PW7 Sunil Lambe deposed about the situation prevalent on the spot of incident. True it is that both these witnesses are acquainted with the members of the prosecuting party, but that by itself cannot be a ground to reject their evidence. Evidence of both these witnesses, so far as the situation prevalent on the scene of occurrence, cannot be doubted, and there is no such material in cross-examination to doubt their version. 9. With this evidence, the prosecution has established that there was robbery at the shop of PW4 Shashiram Mulik named 'Sachin Jewellers' which was situated in the front portion of his residential bungalow. The quantum of articles looted is of no relevance because the FIR Exhibit 64 was lodged by PW4 Shashiram Mulik at 00.30 hours of 14th March 2012, when the incident took place after 10.30 p.m. of 13th March 2012. The incident of robbery must have caused shock to the victim and evidence on record shows that PW5 Sachin Mulik, who is son of PW4 Shashiram Mulik, had suffered injury in the incident. Whether it was on right thumb or left thumb is of no consequence. What is material is in the incident of robbery, PW5 Sachin Mulik had suffered injury which is stated to be contused lacerated wound by PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav of the Civil Hospital, Sangli, who had immediately examined the injured. In such state of affairs, it was not expected of PW4 Shashiram Mulik to recollect what is looted from his shop as well as bungalow. Suffice to state that promptly lodged FIR of this witness shows that whatever was stated by him about the loot in the FIR is tentative information. In such state of affairs, it was not expected of PW4 Shashiram Mulik to recollect what is looted from his shop as well as bungalow. Suffice to state that promptly lodged FIR of this witness shows that whatever was stated by him about the loot in the FIR is tentative information. The First Informant has clarified in his FIR that he will come up with details of the articles looted from his shop as well as his bungalow. Within short span of actual robbery and lodgment of report, it is not expected of the victim to recollect each and every article looted from the shop as well as his bungalow. It is seen from the evidence that on subsequent occasions, the First Informant/PW4 Shashiram Mulik had given further details about the looted articles to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, despite the fact that in the F.I.R., amount of the loot is estimated at Rs. 1.28 lacs but PW 4 Shashiram deposed robbery caused him loss of ornaments worth Rs. 40 lacs and cash amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs, can not be given any importance. In criminal trial proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard and not proof of mathematical precision. When the jewellery shop was found empty so also the locker, non-production of bills, record and receipts to prove robbery is of no consequence. 10. Now lets us examine whether the appellant/accused no. 1 was proved to be a member of the gang, who indulged in robbery by entering into the bungalow of PW4 Shashiram Mulik in night hours. Evidence of PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik narrates the mode and manner in which the robbery took place. Initially, the robbers secured their entry in the bungalow. Then, they intimidated the occupants of the bungalow by pointing a sickle on neck of PW4 Shashiram Mulik and pushed him on person of his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. They assaulted PW5 Sachin Mulik which is seen from his evidence as well as medical evidence coming on record through PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav. Then, three of the robbers took PW5 Sachin Mulik to the jewellery shop to loot the ornaments therefrom. They again came back in the bungalow and then indulged in looting the ornaments from the locker apart from snatching the chain and ring from PW4 Shashiram Mulik. Reshma Jadhav. Then, three of the robbers took PW5 Sachin Mulik to the jewellery shop to loot the ornaments therefrom. They again came back in the bungalow and then indulged in looting the ornaments from the locker apart from snatching the chain and ring from PW4 Shashiram Mulik. Thereafter, all three inmates of the bungalow were tied by pieces of bedsheets after gagging their mouths by the robbers. Except suggestion to PW8 Sharada Mulik that lights were switched off during the course of robbery making it impossible for inmates of the bungalow to see faces of the robbers, evidence of other witnesses namely PW4 Shashiram Mulik and PW5 Sachin Mulik on this aspect has gone unchallenged. PW8 Sharada Mulik had categorically denied this suggestion by the defence. This evidence on record shows that when inmates of the Suyog bungalow were relaxing in their house, at 10.30 p.m. of 13th March 2012 the robbers came and looted gold and silver ornaments apart from other valuables from the shop as well as the bungalow. The incident, as such, must have been lasted for a pretty long time enabling the inmates of the bungalow to watch and recognize faces of the robbers. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses by the defence that at the time of commission of robbery, the robbers had covered their faces or that there was no sufficient light to witness facial features of robbers. Infact, while in the witness box, PW4 Shashiram Mulik and PW5 Sachin Mulik have categorically identified accused persons including appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal. Evidence regarding dock identification of appellant/accused no. 1 by these witnesses has virtually gone unchallenged in their cross-examination. PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik have spoken about identification of accused persons during the course of Test Identification Parade. This evidence of prosecution witnesses is also not challenged in their cross-examination. What was suggested to PW8 Sharada Mulik was that her husband had told her that he had seen persons who had committed robbery at Pune. This suggestion cannot be construed to hold that PW4 Shashiram Mulik had seen faces of the robbers when they were apprehended by the Crime Branch of Pune Police. Rather, no suggestion to that effect was given to PW4 Shashiram Mulik or PW5 Sachin Mulik. This suggestion cannot be construed to hold that PW4 Shashiram Mulik had seen faces of the robbers when they were apprehended by the Crime Branch of Pune Police. Rather, no suggestion to that effect was given to PW4 Shashiram Mulik or PW5 Sachin Mulik. Hence, it cannot be assumed that these witnesses had seen the robbers when they were apprehended by the Crime Branch of Pune Police. Evidence on record does not suggest that the prosecution witnesses had seen the accused at Pune. 11. PW12 Swati Shende, Special Executive Magistrate, had conducted Test Identification Parade so far as appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal and two other accused are concerned, on 23rd April 2012. The appellant/accused no. 1 was arrested on 3rd April 2012. Evidence of PW12 Swati Shende shows that the Test Identification Parade was conducted by her at the District Sub-Jail. It is in her evidence that she alongwith two panch witnesses namely Brijesh Hariya and Sagar Dattatraya Shinde went to the sub-jail for conducting Test Identification Parade. She deposed that prior to calling appellant/accused No. 1 Amol Ovhal for Test Identification Parade she had arranged for those dummies who were looking like the appellant/accused No. 1. Sitting arrangement of identifying witnesses was made in jail hospital in order to make sure that they should not see the accused. Thereafter, she called the appellant/accused No. 1 Amol Ovhal and asked him to stand in the row at the place of his choice with dummies. Option to change his clothes was also given. PW 12 Swati Shende further deposed that the appellant/accused No. 1 did not change his clothes and he stood at serial No. 4 in a row with the dummies. Her evidence shows that thereafter one by one she called PW 1 Shashikant Kudache, PW 5 Sachin Mulik and PW 8 Sharda Mulik and all these identifying witnesses had identified the appellant/accused No. 1 as 'Robber' by touching his person. The Special Executive Magistrate then spoken about the Test Identification Parade of other accused persons by prosecution witnesses. Her evidence shows that she had then prepared memorandum of Test Identification Parade (Exhibit 117). PW 12 Swati Shende was subjected to searching cross examination. It is brought on record from her cross examination that dummies were under trial prisoners. However, she denied that, those under trial prisoners worn clothes given by the jail authorities. Her evidence shows that she had then prepared memorandum of Test Identification Parade (Exhibit 117). PW 12 Swati Shende was subjected to searching cross examination. It is brought on record from her cross examination that dummies were under trial prisoners. However, she denied that, those under trial prisoners worn clothes given by the jail authorities. She denied the suggestion that the police personnel were present at the time of Test Identification Parade. She further denied that the witnesses sat at the same place after identifying robber. Her cross examination further reveals that one jail guard was bringing witnesses for identification and was taking them out of the room whereas, another guard was bringing the accused in the room and was taking him out. From cross examination of this Special Executive Magistrate, nothing could be brought on record to doubt her version regarding conduct of Test Identification Parade. Dummies as seen from the memorandum of Test Identification Parade were from the age group 24 years to 37 years whereas, the appellant/arrested accused was 30 years old, as such, it can not be said that dummies were not of similar age group as that of appellant/accused. In this view of the matter, it can not be said that the Test Identification Parade was not conducted properly. It was conducted soon after the arrest of the appellant/accused. As stated in foregoing paragraph victims of crime in question namely PW 4 Shashiram Mulik; PW 5 Sachin Mulik and PW 8 Sharda Mulik have identified appellant/accused no. 1 while in dock. They had ample opportunity to see the robbers during the course of incident of robbery at their house and shop. Evidence of dock identification is not challenged in the cross examination of these witnesses. Identification of appellant/accused by these witnesses during the course of Test Identification Parade is corroborating their version of dock identification of the appellant/accused no. 1. 12. There is evidence regarding recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the appellant/accused no. 1 in presence of Panch witness PW 7 Sunil Lambe. The appellant/accused made confessional statement (Exhibit 75) expressing his willingness to show gold articles given to Gedam. After recording of his memorandum statement (Exhibit 75) in presence of Panch witness Sunil Lambe, appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal led panch witnesses and police party to Dapoli Square of Wagholi area on Pune Mumbai road. The appellant/accused made confessional statement (Exhibit 75) expressing his willingness to show gold articles given to Gedam. After recording of his memorandum statement (Exhibit 75) in presence of Panch witness Sunil Lambe, appellant/accused no. 1 Amol Ovhal led panch witnesses and police party to Dapoli Square of Wagholi area on Pune Mumbai road. He asked them to stop the vehicle in a lane. He then took them to a room and by taking out key kept near the door of that room, opened the door of the room. He then produced black coloured bag. Said bag was containing gold ornaments alongwith visiting card of Sachin Jewellers. Those articles were then seized vide Panchnama (Exhibit 76). Thus, at the instance of appellant/accused, looted gold ornaments valued at Rs. 15,42,00,000/- came to be recovered. Those were ornaments looted from the Jeweller shop of victim. This evidence definitely incriminates appellant/accused in crime in question. 13. In the result, the prosecution has duly proved commission of robbery by appellant/accused No. 1 alongwith the co-accused by wrongfully confining the victims in the crime in question and after criminally intimidating them. Punishment imposed on the appellant/accused no. 1 is proper, in view of evidence held to be proved by him. No reason for interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence is demonstrated. Therefore, the order. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, criminal application also stands disposed of.