JUDGMENT : Prem Narayan Singh, J. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.03.2022 delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha, District-Mandleshwar, in Sessions Trial No.127/2015, wherein learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 341 , 394 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 1 month S.I. and 6 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.2,000/- with usual default stipulations. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that complainant Mukesh Rathore lodged a report at Police Station Balwada, District Khargone that on 28.12.2014 at about 7.00 pm he was going to village Ramana from Indore and when he reached Lalpura crossing, three unknown persons came in a motorcycle stopped their vehicle in front of his vehicle, assaulted him and committed loot of Micromax Mobile, cash of Rs.5000/-, motor cycle along with its documents. Thereafter complainant went to Umariya outpost, where he informed about the incident to his relative Parashuram Yadav, from where he went to Barwaha hospital for treatment. On that basis, FIR bearing Crime No. 0/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 394 , 341 of IPC, 1860 was registered against unknown persons. 3. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles and arrested the accused persons and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 394 , 341 of IPC, 1860 before JMFC, Barwaha. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where upon co-accused persons were declared absconding and the charges were framed under Sections 394 , 341 of IPC against appellant Krishna S/o Mohan. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution on its behalf has examined as many as 9 witnesses namely Mukesh Rathore (PW-1), Parasuram (PW-2), Jitendra (PW-3), Dr. Ashish Sen (PW-4), Munna (PW-5), Paramjeet Singh (PW-6), Sanjay Sharma (PW-7), Santosh Mishra (PW-8), Rajaram (PW-9). No. witness has been adduced in defence by the appellant. 5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 25.03.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Ashish Sen (PW-4), Munna (PW-5), Paramjeet Singh (PW-6), Sanjay Sharma (PW-7), Santosh Mishra (PW-8), Rajaram (PW-9). No. witness has been adduced in defence by the appellant. 5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 25.03.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Other co-accused persons Malkhan and Lakhan were acquitted from the aforesaid offence vide order dated 08.07.2022 passed in S.T. No.100127/2015. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already completed jail sentence of 7 and 1/2 months. Other accused persons have already been acquitted. Seizure witnesses have deposed in the Court that they have put their signatures in Police Station and no seizure was made in front of them. Police has disclosed that items have been seized from the present applicant while independent witnesses have not supported the case in this regard. Earlier complainant has stated in the FIR that Rs.5000/- was looted from him, however, in his Court statement he has changed his version and deposed that Rs.8000/- along with one gold ring was looted from him by the accused persons. No identification parade was conducted, in which the present appellant has been identified. Trial Court while acquitting the co- accused persons has clearly stated in the order that the complainant has deposed that the incident occurred in dark and he could not see the faces of the accused persons and hence the report was lodged against unknown persons. Seized articles have also been identified by the complainant. In the same incident, two different orders have been passed wherein in one accused has been convicted and two others have been acquitted. Hence the present applicant is liable to be given the benefit of doubt as he is also in the same footing as the co-accused persons. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant alternatively advanced his arguments on the point of sentence. There are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and the counsel assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also submitted that the appellant has suffered 7 and 1/2 months in custody out of total 06 years. There are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and the counsel assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also submitted that the appellant has suffered 7 and 1/2 months in custody out of total 06 years. The appellant is having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 10 years (since 2014), therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that at the time of passing the judgment by the trial Court, the appellant remained absconding and thereafter he has been arrested approximately after two years, therefore, no leniency is called for. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after considering each and every circumstances of the case and convicted the appellant rightly, hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, I have gone through the record. 10. From the statement of complainant Mukesh Rathore (P.W.1) it is evident that he has not identified anyone as the incident has happened in night. However, the said stolen articles, a purse of chocolate colour, registration certificate of motorcycle bearing registration no.MP 09 QC 7342 seized from the appellant? 11. It is also worth mentioning that the said articles were identified by complainant Mukesh Rathore (P.W.1) and the fact of identification has been corroborated by Sanjay Sharma (P.W.7), Executive Magistrate. Hence it is and license of complainant have been seized from the possession of present appellant. Now the question arises as to how this stolen articles have been evidently established that the stolen articles were seized from the appellant. 12. Hence it is and license of complainant have been seized from the possession of present appellant. Now the question arises as to how this stolen articles have been evidently established that the stolen articles were seized from the appellant. 12. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that witnesses of seizure - Munna (P.W.5) and Rajaram (P.W.9) have not supported the prosecution case, actually Munna (P.W5) has supported the prosecution case and the statement of Munna (P.W.5) also find support from the statement of Santosh Mishra, I.O. So far as the reliability of Police and Official witness is concerned, on this aspect, the following ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311 , is propitious to produce here:- "8.........The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds........" 13. In a full bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhatisgarh , dated 10.09.2020 reported as (2020) 9 SCC 627 , it is held as under:- "........It is true that all the aforesaid witnesses are police officials and two independent witnesses, who were panchnama witnesses had turned hostile. However, all the aforesaid police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy. All of them have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. There is no allegation of any enmity between the police witnesses and the accused. No such defence has been taken in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. There is no law that the evidence of police officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance." 14. In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in , while considering somewhat similar situation, it was observed that "The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status." 15. In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in , while considering somewhat similar situation, it was observed that "The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status." 15. In upshot of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, the statement of investigating officer Santosh Mishra (PW-8) cannot be disbelieved only on the basis of non-support of independent witnesses. It is also significant to mention here that one of the independent witnesses Munna (P.W.5) has also supported the said seizure from the applicant. It is also worth to mention that the prosecution has successfully proved the facts that this appellant has caused injuries on the person of injured. This circumstance would be taken into account for believing the statement of sole police witness i.e. investigating officer Santosh Mishra (PW-8). 16. That apart learned counsel also contended that on the same set of evidence other co-accused persons have been acquitted by another Judge of that Court, but only on that basis appellant cannot be acquitted because specific identification of article has been established and since the appellant is unable to explain as to how the purse and documents of stolen motor cycle including driving license of complainant Mukesh Rathore was seized from him, the presumptions would be drawn against him with regard to committal of offence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that since on the same set of evidence other accused persons namely Makhan and Lakhan were acquitted by the learned trial Court, then, this appellant cannot be convicted on the same. The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Full Bench decision, rendered in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1956 SC 460 , is poignant in this regard. The relevant part of the judgment is mentioned below :- Be that as it may, we are no more concerned with the case against those two accused persons who have been acquitted by the High Court; but so far as the appellants are concerned, the evidence of the four eyewitnesses referred to above is consistent and has not been shaken in cross-examination. That evidence has been relied upon by the courts below and we do not see any sufficient reasons to go behind that finding. It is true that three out of those four witnesses are closely related to the deceased Inder Singh. That evidence has been relied upon by the courts below and we do not see any sufficient reasons to go behind that finding. It is true that three out of those four witnesses are closely related to the deceased Inder Singh. But that, it has again been repeatedly held, is no ground for not acting upon that testimony if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that the witnesses were competent witnesses who could be expected to be near about the place of occurrence and could have seen what happened that afternoon. We need not notice the other arguments sought to be advanced in this Court bearing upon the probabilities of the case because those are all questions of fact which have been adverted to and discussed by the courts below. 18. Here, it has to be kept in mind that this Court is not testing the legality of acquittal of two accused persons. In this appeal on the basis of evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is in accordance with law and facts. It is also well settled principle that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaktilal Afdul Gaffar Khan Vs. Basant Raghunath Gogle reported in (2005) 7 SCC 749 has held as under :- It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'." 19. In view of the finding of learned trial Court with regard to conviction of appellant under Sections 341 , 394 of IPC appears to be correct. In view of the finding of learned trial Court with regard to conviction of appellant under Sections 341 , 394 of IPC appears to be correct. Nevertheless, the complainant has also received the following wounds: 1. one lacerated wound on left side of mastoids of 1/2 x 4 mm deep. 2. 1 x 1 cm abrasion on the back side of the head. 3. Contusion of 3 x 3x 4 mm found just above the hip on the back. 4. Contusion of 3 x 3 x 2 inch on the right side of the back. The aforesaid injuries has been found corroborated with the statement of Dr Ashish Sen (P.W.4), therefore the finding of conviction under Section 394 of IPC, is found to be just and proper in accordance with law. 20. So far as the conviction for the offence of wrongful restraint of complainant by applicant is concerned, in view of the aforesaid discussions the findings of learned trial Court for punishment under Section 341 of IPC, 1860 is also found infallible in this regard. Therefore this Court is of the view that no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction under Sections 341 , 394 of IPC, 1860 passed by the learned trial Court, accordingly, the same is upheld. 21. Now returning to the part of sentence the learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the punishment of 06 years R.I. is excessive punishment, appellant has faced ordeal of trial for more than 10 years, there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and considering the custody period counsel prayed that the same be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. That apart, the offence was committed without pre-mediation, pre-planning and only on spur of movement. The prayer has been rebutted by learned Govt. Advocate submitting that appellant remained absconding for more than one and half years and thereafter he was arrested and produced before the trial Court, hence he does not deserve any leniency. On this aspect, the following excerpt of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra ; [ 2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) is worth mentioning here:- "28. On this aspect, the following excerpt of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra ; [ 2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) is worth mentioning here:- "28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc." 22. On this facet, the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Jaswinder Singh (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 2441 is also condign to quote here as under :- "26. An important aspect to be kept in mind is that any undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society can not long endure under serious threats and if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed....." 23. In upshot of the aforesaid law, I am not inclined to let off the appellant only with a period of already undergone. In this case the complainant has been looted and also been assaulted. However, considering the fact that the appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2014 and he has suffered approximately 7 and 1/2 months in custody out of total 06 years, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this criminal appeal by affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 341 of IPC and sentence for offence under Section 394 , of IPC is hereby reduced from 6 years R.I. to 2 years R.I. by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5000/-. 24. The appellant is in jail. 24. The appellant is in jail. On completion of 2 years in custody and on depositing the enhanced fine amount, he shall be released from the jail, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine if already deposited, shall be sumathi adjusted. 25. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 02 months of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case. 26. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any, stands confirmed. 27. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance. 28. Pending application, if any, stands closed. Certified copy, as per rules.