Budihal R.B., J.

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1 challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.07.2011 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.17904/2011 and also judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-X, Bengaluru, in Cri. A.569/2011.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant by name Smt. Rasheeda Banu wife of Aslam, residing at Ramanagar, had lodged the complaint on 15.01.2008 stating that, on 15.01.2008 she boarded Mysore Salem Express Train in order to travel to Yeshwanthapura with her two children. The train reached SBC Railway Station at 12.30 p.m. and had stopped there for 45 minutes, most of the passengers had got down and hence, she moved to the compartment, which was nearby to the engine. Along with her, 3-4 lady passengers were also there. The train left SBC Railway Station at 1.20 p.m., but stopped near Malleswaram Railway Station for crossing. After sometime, it started moving slowly, some four persons, who were sitting in the same compartment, suddenly came and assaulted the complainant and thereafter by showing knife asked her to give all her belongings. The accused persons snatched the vanity bag containing cash of Rs.2,000/- and one mobile phone. Complainant got frightened and no one, who was sitting in the compartment, came to her help. She along with her children jumped from the moving train and sustained injuries. The contract workers, who were working, saw her and helped her in getting admitted to hospital at Rajajinagar. Thereafter, the Police recorded her statement in the hospital and registered the F.I.R.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, Investigating officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other three accused persons. Thereafter, prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined 11 witnesses and got marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.Os.1 and 2. On the side of the defence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced.

5. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials, ultimately dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, but modified the sentence stating that the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the said offence. Hence, petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-accused No.1, so also, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no acceptable evidence so far as establishing the identity of the petitioner by P.W.6 during the course of trial proceedings. As per the case of the complainant along with petitioner-accused No.1, three other accused persons have participated in committing the alleged offence. But, no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.5 to 11. Without giving such opportunity, the trial Court has accepted the evidence and proceeded to convict the accused. As such, the matter requires reconsideration by the trial Court.

8. Per-contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that all these contentions were canvassed by the petitioner before the trial Court