JUDGMENT : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 1376/2021 submits that the appellant is not arguing his appeal on merits of the case, but praying for reduction of the sentence from five years to the period already undergone. The co-accused Vikram Singh has also filed Cr. Appeal No. 3731/2018 and vide order dated 3.8.2018, the jail sentence has been suspended by this Court. Since both the criminal appeals are arising of the common judgment of conviction hence heard together. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 22.11.2016, complainant Ganesh resident of Nisarpur, District Dhar engaged in the business of bricks manufacturing, was going to his daughter's house in Village Navagaon, Maharashtra via Vill. Niwali from his motorcycle. Near about at 3.00 pm. When he reached Village Talav, two unknown miscreants overtook him on a new motorcycle and asked him as to where he is going. He replied that he is going to his daughter's house. They get down from the motorcycle and snatched 17 currency notes of 100-100 denomination, in total Rs.1,700/- and took out his Nokia mobile valued at Rs.1,100/- . In between, Mahendra and Nitesh (PW-4 & PW-5) came there and the said two miscreants ran away on their motorcycle. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the FIR against the present appellants. The police registered the FIR u/s. 394 of the IPC against the appellant by name because their names were was disclosed to the complainant by Mahendra and Nitesh. 3. Complainant-Ganesh was medically examined and as per the MLC (Exh. P/19), he has suffered a contusion on his left cheek by a hard and blunt object. 4. After registration of the FIR, Vikram Singh was arrested on 24.11.2016. His memorandum u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded in which he admitted that he along with Shankar had looted Rs.1,700/- and one mobile of the complainant. Shankar has kept Rs.1,000/- and mobile and gave him Rs.700/- which was recovered. Thereafter, Shankar was also arrested on 19.12.2016 and from his possession, Nokia mobile was recovered. The police has conducted the TIP of the mobile in which the complainant PW-9 has identified his mobile in presence of two witnesses-Suresh and Mukesh (PW-3 & PW-6). After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. 5. Thereafter, Shankar was also arrested on 19.12.2016 and from his possession, Nokia mobile was recovered. The police has conducted the TIP of the mobile in which the complainant PW-9 has identified his mobile in presence of two witnesses-Suresh and Mukesh (PW-3 & PW-6). After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge u/s. 394/34 of the IPC against the appellants. They denied the charges and pleaded for trial. 6. The prosecution has examined Bhagirath (PW-1) and Aapsingh (PW-2) as seizure witnesses, both have identified Vikram Singh but admitted that they signed on a blank papers hence they were declared hostile. The prosecution examined Suresh (PW-3) as a recovery witness who said that he knows Vikram Singh but signed on the blank papers. He has also been declared hostile. PW-4 Mahendra has admitted that he knows Vikram Singh but does not know the other accused i.e. Shankar. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The prosecution examined Nitesh as PW-5. According to him, Ganesh came on his motorcycle and thereafter two persons came there on the motorcycle and they started abusing Ganesh. Vikram Singh was abusing but another person was standing and his name was Shankar and he did not commit any offence. The police did not record his statement, hence he was also declared hostile. Mukesh-Chainman was examined as PW-6. He was a witness to the TIP. Nanaram Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Niwali was examined as PW-7, who recorded the FIR. Rameshchandra Chouhan-In-charge Tehsildar was examined as PW-8 who conducted the TIP. 7. Complainant-Ganesh was examined as PW-9. According to him, two unknown persons overtook him and started abusing him with filthy language. Shankar has assaulted him by fists and thereafter he snatched 17 currency notes of 100-100/- and one mobile. In the mobile, he had inserted the SIM of Airtel company. Thereafter two other persons came there and the accused persons ran away. Those two persons named the accused as Vikram Singh and Shankar and who are present in the Court. He has further deposed that he was medically examined, a spot map was prepared at his instance. He was cross-examined by the counsel of Shankar and he has denied all his suggestions. Those two persons named the accused as Vikram Singh and Shankar and who are present in the Court. He has further deposed that he was medically examined, a spot map was prepared at his instance. He was cross-examined by the counsel of Shankar and he has denied all his suggestions. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the counsel of the Vikram Singh and in which, he denied the presence of Vikram Singh on the spot and he did not commit any incident with him. He has also admitted that he did not identify Vikram Singh in the TIP and his mobile was shown by the police ,which he identified in the TIP. 8. Thereafter, the prosecution examined Jagdish Chouhan Assistant Sub Inspector as PW-10 who conducted the investigation; Yogesh Patil-Constable posted in Cyber Branch, Police Office, Barwani as PW-11; Jitendra Chouhan Sub-Inspector posted in Niwali Police Station, as PW-12. 9. In defence, the appellant and another accused did not examine any witness but denied the charges by submitting that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 10. After appreciating the evidence came on record vide judgment dated 16.4.2018 learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sendhwa has convicted the appellant as well as co-accused Vikram Singh u/s. 394/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs.1,000-1000/- with default stipulation. 11. So far as appellant-Shankar is concerned, there is enough material against him that he assaulted and looted cash as well as mobile from the complainant Ganesh. He was duly identified by the complainant Ganesh (PW-9) in the TIP as well as in the Court and there was the recovery of mobile from him which had duly been identified by the complainant. Therefore, the conviction of appellant-Shanker is proper and no interference is called for by this Court. Hence, the same is hereby upheld. 12. Shri Ajmera Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Shankar submits that the appellant is in jail for the last 4½ years because of his poor economic condition he could not prefer any appeal within limitation. He is not convicted of any other offence. He is facing the agony of trial and incarnation for the last five years. During the trial, he remained in jail from 16.12.2016 to 17.12.2016 and thereafter from 17.12.2016 till today. There is no report that he has committed any offence or did not maintain discipline in the jail. He is not convicted of any other offence. He is facing the agony of trial and incarnation for the last five years. During the trial, he remained in jail from 16.12.2016 to 17.12.2016 and thereafter from 17.12.2016 till today. There is no report that he has committed any offence or did not maintain discipline in the jail. He should be given chance to reform himself. Therefore, the period of custody be reduced from 5 years to the period already undergone. 13. While sentencing the present appellant-Shankar, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that no other conviction against him reported against him. He is a first offender who belongs to a poor family. He has never been released during trial, therefore, the prayer appears to be reasonable. As a reformative approach towards him, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant is herby by accepted. The period of a jail sentence of five years is reduced to the period already undergone, however ever, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand). 14. So far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant Vikram Singh is concerned, he has been convicted with the aid of Section 34. Although he was named FIR against him, there is no role attributed to him. There is the only recovery of Rs.700/- from him which is unidentifiable. He did not assault the complainant. Nothing has been said in the deposition in the Court against him. In the cross-examination, the complainant has refused to identify him and deposed to the extent that he was not present on the date of the incident. He has been named in the FIR on the basis of disclosure made by Mahendra and Nitesh who have been declared hostile by the Court. He is also a first offender. Therefore, in view of the testimony of the complainant (PW-9), the conviction and sentence of the appellant-Vikram Singh is quashed. Hence, the appeal (CRA No. 3731/2018) filed by Vikram Singh is allowed. Appellant is already on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged. 15. With the aforesaid, both the appeals (CRA Nos. 1376/2021 & CRA No. 3731/2018) stand disposed of, the record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. The appellant-Shankar be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other cause subject to deposit of the fine amount. Let a photocopy of this judgment be retained in the connected appeal.