- (1.) APPELLANTS Dhani Ram and Jagdish have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26- 7-1980 passed by Sri S. N. Singh, the then Ad ditional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur convicting the appellants under Sections 392/397, IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) HEARD Sri P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A. G. A. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that a charge under Section 397, IPC is not established by the evidence on record and therefore, con viction of the appellants under Section 392, IPC with the aid of 397, IPC can not be sustained. The learned counsel further con tends that the sentence awarded is too severe. Learned A. G. A. contends that there is specific allegation of use of fire- arm, a deadly weapon, in commission of the crime. Therefore, the appellants were rightly con victed under Sections 392/397, IPC. It is further contended that the minimum sen tence where an accused convicted for of fence of robbery and dacoity with the charge under Section 397, IPC, is 7 years. There fore, the sentence awarded can not be said to be too severe. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 30-6-77. The allegations in short are that at about 8. 30 P. M. the first inform ant an employee of the Sahkari Samiti, Said-pur was going to his house on a cycle of Secretary of the society when he reached on the culvert of the canal near village Nain-wara two miscreants stopped him by flash ing torch light. He saw that one Bantu Chamar was being robbed by the miscreants. The miscreants also asked the first informant to give his belongings to them and threatened at the pistol point that if he did not do so he would be killed. The miscreants looted the complainant's cycle, clothes and shoe. Thereafter hands and legs of both Bantu and the complainant were tied and the miscreants ran away. The com plainant and Bantu, however, managed to free themselves after the miscreants fled away from the place of occurrence and a report about the incident was lodged on 1-7- 1977 at P. S. Maihrauni.
(3.) AFTER the two appellants were ar rested they were put up for test identifica tion. Both Surendra Pal Singh P. W. 4 and Bantu P. W. 5 correctly identified them during the test identification proceedings. At the trial, the prosecution ex amined in all fourteen witnesses. The appel lants denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that they were falsely implicated at the behest of the police. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence.;