JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2016 and 28th January, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 430 (November) 2014 and Sessions Trial No. 02(01)2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.1635 of 2014 and Moyna Police Station Case No. 144 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months more for the offence punishable under Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Sections 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 18.07.2014 Samir Maity (P.W.1) was proceeding at night around 10 p.m. from his shop at Balai Pandar Bazar market to his residence in a motor-cycle. When he reached Maity Kutir another motor-cycle carrying three persons overtook him. Two of the miscreants surrounded him and one of them showed a pistol at him. Other miscreant snatched his black rucksack containing cash of Rs.50,000/-, one tiffin box, valuable papers, bank passbook and diary. They also took away his black coloured money bag containing Rs.800/- and keys from his pocket. Thereafter, the miscreants took him to a deserted place in Haridaspur and snatched his gold finger ring and gold chain and two mobile phones. They threatened him with dire consequences and left the spot. P.W 1 was stunned by the incident. After sometime, he proceeded to his home and narrated the incident to his family members. On the next date, he lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Moyna Police Station Case No. 144 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown miscreants. P.W 1 was stunned by the incident. After sometime, he proceeded to his home and narrated the incident to his family members. On the next date, he lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Moyna Police Station Case No. 144 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown miscreants. In the course of investigation appellants were arrested and were put up for test identification parade in the presence of P.W. 6, learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W. 1 identified the appellants as the miscreants before the learned Magistrate. On the leading statements of the appellants stolen articles including Samsung Mobile Phone, business papers, passbook and tiffin box were recovered. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and charge was framed under Section 394/397/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In conclusion of trial, trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27th January, 2016 and 28th January, 2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 5. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA 121 of 2016, argued there is inconsistency between the version of P.W. 1 and his allegations in the F.I.R. While in court P.W.1 stated the incident occurred at two places there is no such indication in the F.I.R. It is further contended that the witness was shown the photographs of the appellants in the course of investigation and therefore his identification before the learned Magistrate or during trial loses significance. Evidence of P.W 5 is at variance with P.W. 1. Seizure list witnesses have not been supported the prosecution case. P.W. 1 admitted that mobile phone seized by the police did not belong to him. Hence, prosecution case has not been proved beyond doubt and the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 6. Ms. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA 471 of 2016 while adopting the submissions of Mr. Bose, submitted that the voters' identity card seized from Selim Khan had been produced by P.W. 1 in the course of investigation and is not a part of the stolen booty. She also submitted that P.W. 1 had not indicated the specific roles of the appellants before the learned Magistrate during test identification parade. Bose, submitted that the voters' identity card seized from Selim Khan had been produced by P.W. 1 in the course of investigation and is not a part of the stolen booty. She also submitted that P.W. 1 had not indicated the specific roles of the appellants before the learned Magistrate during test identification parade. There was no identification mark on the seized tiffin box. Recovery of stolen articles from the appellants have not been proved and implication of her clients is wholly based on inadmissible or unreliable evidence. Accordingly, she prayed for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W 1 is clear, convincing and inspires confidence. He specifically narrated the roles of the appellants in court and identified them both during TI parade as well as during trial. Source of light has also been disclosed by P.W. 1. His version is corroborated by P.W. 5. Recovery of stolen articles were proved by the investigating officer, P.W 8. Hence, prosecution case has been fully established and does not call for interference. 8. From an analysis of the evidence on record it appears that the prosecution essentially hinges on the evidence of P.W 1, defacto complainant. P.W.1 deposed on 18.07.2014 at 10 p.m. he was proceeding in his motor-cycle from his shop at Balai Pandar Bazar to his residence. When he reached Maiti Kutir a motorcycle crossed him and stopped in front of his vehicle. There were three persons in the motorcycle. He could see them from the headlight of his vehicle. Two of them surrounded him and one of them showed a pistol at him. Thereafter, the other person snatched a black rucksack carried by him containing cash of Rs.50,000/- , valuable papers, one passbook etc. Miscreants also took his moneybag and key from his pocket. Thereafter, two miscreants jumped onto his motorcycle and all of them took him to a deserted place at Hariduspur. There the miscreants snatched his mobile phones, gold chain and ring and ran away. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Initially he was stunned by the incident. After some time he proceeded to his house. As it was night, he did not go to police station. He told the incident to his family members and others. On the next day at about 2.30 p.m. he lodged written complaint which was scribed by his friend. Initially he was stunned by the incident. After some time he proceeded to his house. As it was night, he did not go to police station. He told the incident to his family members and others. On the next day at about 2.30 p.m. he lodged written complaint which was scribed by his friend. He proved the complaint (exhibit 1/1). In the course of investigation he identified the appellants in TI parade. 9. Evidence of the said witness has been challenged on behalf on the appellants on the score that he stated the dacoity had taken place in court at two places while such fact had not been disclosed in the first information report. It is also contended that there is delay in lodging first information report. P.W.1 had been shown photographs of the appellants prior to their identification in TI parade. Hence, their identification by P.W.1 is of no value. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the appellants. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts. P.W.1 has narrated in minute details the genesis of the incident in court. According to him, the incident occurred in two phases. Firstly, the miscreants had accosted him at Maiti Kutir and upon showing pistol had snatched his black rucksack containing cash and other personal items. Thereafter, they had taken him to another deserted place where he was robbed of his mobile phones, gold articles. In the First Information Report he has disclosed the aforesaid robbery. Failure to narrate the incident in details in the FIR, in my estimation, does not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case as the gist of the First Information Report resonates with the substratum of his deposition in court. Accordingly, I am of the opinion failure of the de facto complainant to narrate the places of commission of robbery in the First Information Report does not affect the inherent truthfulness of his version. 11. Pw 1 explained the circumstances in which he lodged the First Information Report in the afternoon of 19.07.2014. He deposed he was perplexed after the incident and somehow returned home. As night had fallen he did not go to the police station. He, however, narrated the incident to family members and others. On the next day in the afternoon he lodged First Information Report. He deposed he was perplexed after the incident and somehow returned home. As night had fallen he did not go to the police station. He, however, narrated the incident to family members and others. On the next day in the afternoon he lodged First Information Report. The aforesaid conspectus of facts clearly explains the circumstances in which law was set into motion and I am loath to disbelieve the otherwise convincing version of the de facto complainant on such score. 12. Pw 1 has stoutly denied the suggestion of the defence that photographs of the appellants had been shown to him prior to the TI parade. Learned counsel strenuously argued such possibility cannot be ruled out as photographs of the accused persons were taken during investigation. I am unable to convince myself to accept such argument. Taking snapshot of the suspect is a routine investigational exercise. Merely because snapshots of the suspect were taken, it cannot be inferred they were shown to P.W.1. There is nothing in record to show that PW 1 had met the police officer prior to the holding of TI parade to probabilize such defence version. On the other hand, PW 6, Judicial Magistrate who conducted the TI parade deposed that PW 1 had identified the appellants during such exercise. He proved the TI Parade sheet. No question was put to the Magistrate during cross-examination with regard to any complaint made by the appellants that they had been identified by the witness beforehand. 13. I am also unwilling to disregard the evidence of PW 1 in court with regard to the specific roles played by the appellants in the course of the robbery since he did not disclose such fact during TI parade examination. Purpose of such examination is to establish the identity of a suspect. No duty is cast on the Magistrate while undertaking such exercise to seek a complete narration of the incident. On the other hand, PW 1 categorically disclosed the roles of the appellants during his deposition in court. He stated Sk. Moydul Ali as the person who had snatched the black rucksack and had driven his motorcycle to a deserted place at Haridaspur. Selim Khan had shown a pistol at him while Raju had driven the motorcycle with which the miscreants had come to the spot. He had ample opportunity to see the appellants in the headlight of his motorcycle. Moydul Ali as the person who had snatched the black rucksack and had driven his motorcycle to a deserted place at Haridaspur. Selim Khan had shown a pistol at him while Raju had driven the motorcycle with which the miscreants had come to the spot. He had ample opportunity to see the appellants in the headlight of his motorcycle. Incident occurred over a period of time and therefore the identity of the miscreants was fully imprinted in his memory. For these reasons I have no hesitation to hold the identification of the appellants by PW 1 does not suffers from any infirmity and his deposition can form the sole basis of conviction of the appellants for the offence of robbery. 14. Evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by PW 4 and PW 5. PW 4 is a reported witness to whom P.W.1 had narrated the incident soon after the occurrence. PW 5 is a businessman who was driving down the morrum road when he noticed a motorcycle cross him. Thereafter, he heard a hue and cry as the said motorcycle had been stopped by another motorcycle and a person was being carried away by others. These facts lend credence and corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1. I am, however, not inclined to believe the remaining evidence of PW 5 that local people and police assembled at the spot soon thereafter as such facts are not corroborated by P.W.1. 15. I am also unable to accept the submission of the appellants that PW 1 had not been put to fear of injury or death as the fire arm had not been recovered. P.W.1 unequivocally stated that one of the miscreants i.e. Selim Khan had brandished a pistol and threatened him with dire consequences. Failure on the part of the police to recover the weapon does not affect the clear and unequivocal evidence of the victim that the miscreants had threatened his life with a pistol at the time of robbery. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the appellants were armed with a deadly weapon at the time of robbery and had threatened the victim with death. 17. Coming to the recovery of stolen articles, I find the independent witnesses to the seizure have not corroborated the prosecution case. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the appellants were armed with a deadly weapon at the time of robbery and had threatened the victim with death. 17. Coming to the recovery of stolen articles, I find the independent witnesses to the seizure have not corroborated the prosecution case. Although the witnesses of seizure P.W.s 2, 3 and 7 admitted their signatures in the seizure list, they deposed that they had signed the seizure list at the police station. It is also relevant to note that the mobile phones purportedly seized pursuant to the leading statement of Raju was not identified by PW 1. However, recovery from Sk. Moydul Ali relates to various business papers of PW 1 as well as his SBI Pass Book and other personal items. Such personal items recovered from the said accused soon after the incident not only gives rise to the irresistible inference of his role in the dacoity but also establish the offence of receiving stolen property so far as he is concerned. However, articles recovered from other appellants namely Selim Khan and Raju either have not been identified or proved to be stolen articles. Mobile phones recovered on the leading statement of Raju have not been identified by PW 1. There is no evidence that knife was used during robbery. Voter identity card purportedly seized on the leading statement of Selim Khan was produced in the course of investigation and there is nothing to show that it was a part of the stolen articles. Even the tiffin box recovered from the said accused also does not have any identifying mark and investigating officer admitted that such tiffin box is ordinarily available in the market. 18. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion prosecution has failed to prove that the articles allegedly recovered from Raju and Selim Khan were parts of the stolen booty. Hence, I am inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the said appellants so far as their conviction under Section 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 19. In the light of the discussion conviction of appellant Sk. Moydul Ali @ Sk. Maidul Ali is upheld on all scores. 20. Conviction of appellants Raju and Selim Khan are upheld under Section 394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In the light of the discussion conviction of appellant Sk. Moydul Ali @ Sk. Maidul Ali is upheld on all scores. 20. Conviction of appellants Raju and Selim Khan are upheld under Section 394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are, however, acquitted of all charges under Section 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellants do not have criminal antecedents. Weapon of offence i.e. pistol had not been recovered. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors I consider it prudent to modify the sentences imposed on the appellants. 22. Accordingly, I direct that the appellant Sk. Moydul Ali @ Sk. Maidul Ali shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Sentence on the score of Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. 23. Sentences imposed on Raju and Selim Khan are also modified. They shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months on the score of offence punishable under Section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence so far as Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned remains unaltered. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 24. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellants during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. The appeals are, thus, disposed of. 26. Accordingly, the connected application being CRAN 5454 of 2017 is also disposed of. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once. 28. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites. 29. I agree.