M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) The Appellant, Darshan Singh, was one of the four who were convicted under Sec. 397, Indian Penal Code, but he was also additionally convicted under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. Two of them preferred Criminal Appeal No. 260 -SB of 1982 in this Court which was disposed of by me on August 30, 1983. I had altered the conviction of those two accused from one under Sec. 397, Indian Penal Code, to Sec. 392, Indian Penal Code, and reduced their sentence to the period already undergone. The Appellant did not join his co - accused in then filing his appeal. It is as late as on March 7, 1986, that he filed the present appeal moving an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same. Decision in Criminal Appeal No. 260 -SB of 1982 was pressed into service to seek some relief in the appeal. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted and ordered to be listed out of turn today.
(2.) It has to be decided with reference to the context of Criminal Appeal No, 260 -SB of 1982 and the decision therein kept in view.
(3.) The role of the Appellant was described in the above -referred to case in this manner: - ...... Darshan Singh accused was armed with a pistol; Joginder Singh accused armed with a Gandasi and the remaining two, Hansa Singh and Kashmir Singh were armed with lathies,................... Darshan Singh placed his pistol on the chest of Hoshiar Singh (PW -1) warning him that if he would utter anything he would be shot. His companions removed his wrist -watch and deprived him of his wearing apparel. His purse containing Rs. 95/ - and his identity card, having a photograph were also removed. In the meantime, a buffalo -driven cart approached from Sadiron side in which were sitting PW -2 Sunehra and PW -3 Raghbir Singh. They too were robbed by the culprits. Currency notes of Rs. 45/ -, one torch and one Jeli were snatched from them............................ Then those four persons ran away towards the field. So far as the guilt of the other three accused was concerned, I had concluded as follows: - ......... In the absence of any corroboration that hurt had been caused to the prosecution witnesses by production of a medical expert, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the Appellants under Sec. 397 of the Indian Penal Code. It is nobody's case that the Appellants had employed their Gandasa and sticks in any other manner, that is to say by show of force or the like. Thus, while relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as an abundant caution, I would whittle down the offence to one under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code........................;