Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Appellant Mohd. Abdul Hafeez was tried by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad along with three others for having committed an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code who by his judgment and order dated April 30, 1979, convicted all the four accused and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. We are concerned in this appeal with original accused 1 who was charged substantively for the offence under Section 392, I. P. C. and was convicted and sentenced as hereinabove mentioned.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 1 S. Satyanarayana, a young man aged about 19 years boarded a bus on route No. 52 on his way to Charminar Cross Roads from where he was to proceed to Ramnagar. After the bus started, the conductor informed him that the bus would not stop at Charminor Cross Roads, whereupon PW 1 S. Satyanarayana alighted from the bus and started walking back towards the bus stop from where he had boarded the bus. Original accused 2 and 3 also simultaneously alighted from the bus and followed him. They overtook him and started giving fist blows. In the meantime an auto rickshaw bearing No. ADT 4196 driven by original accused 4 reached the spot and stopped nearby. Original accused 2 gagged PW 1. S. Satyanarayana and original accused 3 pushed him inside the auto rickshaw. At that time the present appellant accused 1 was found sitting at the rear portion of the auto rickshaw. Original accused 4 started the auto rickshaw and drove in the direction of Nayapul. During the course of journey original accused 2 snatched a ring MO. 1 from the finger of PW 1 and the present appellant removed cash worth Rs. 100/- from the pocket of PW 1. Thereafter the auto rickshaw was stopped near the petrol pump and present appellant and original accused 2 and 3 pushed out PW 1 from the auto rickshaw and simultaneously he was threatened that if he complained to the police his bones would be broken. Original accused 4 drove away the auto rickshaw. PW 1 S. Satyanarayana proceeded towards Afzalgunj police Station and gave the information Ext. P/1 to PW 5 Sardar Udham Singh, the Inspector of Police who registered an offence under S. 392, I.P.C. and directed PW.6 J. Ranga Reddy to undertake the investigation. Ultimately, present appellant and three others were charge-sheeted and tried, convicted and sentenced as hereinabove mentioned. Present appellant and accused 2 and 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1979 and original accused 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1979 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment Both the appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this appeal by special leave by original accused 1.

3. The evidence against the present appellant consists of two items : (i) that he was identified as the person sitting in the auto rickshaw and who removed Rs. 100/- from the Pocket of P. W. 1 S. Satyanarayana as stated by PW. 1 S. Satyanarayana; and (ii) that he along with original accused 2 and 3 led the Police to the shop of goldsmith-cum-jeweller PW. 3 Pandurangam Kondiah from where MO. 1 ring as sold by them was recovered in the course of the investigation.

4. Turning to the first piece of evidence against the present appellant that he was identified by victim PW 1 S. Satyanarayana as the person who was sitting in the auto rickshaw driven by accused 4 when the auto rickshaw pulled near the spot where accused 2 and 3 had held Satyanarayana, it must be stated that this identification is innocuous and does not furnish any evidence against the present appellant. In Ext. P-1 the First Information Report, informant Satyanarayana did not give the name of the present appellant and for that matter of none of the accused. We would not have attached much importance to the omission of non-mentioning the names of the accused in the FIR Ext. P-1 becaus