IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of a so-ca lied hostile witness is not completely effected and all that is required is that there must be some kind of corroborative evidence which would lend assurance to his trust worthiness - and inspire' confidence in his testimony.

JUDGMENT

J.D. Jain, J. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under section 392, Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 5th March 1983 and he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years for the said offence. Further he has been convicted of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. Feeling aggrieved he has come up in this appeal against his conviction and sentence (through Jail).

2. Since the appellant was un-represented Shri N.L. Kakkar, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to represent him.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the morning of 28th July 1982 at about 5.30 A.M. while Shri Badlawan (PW2) was returning home after finishing his duty as a waterman at Minto Bridge Railway Station, he was accosted by the appellant Vijay and one person by the name of Mohd. Rafiq as he climbed down the staircase near Minto Bridge and turned towards his home. He was then residing at Panchkuian Road. The face of the appellant was covered with a handkerchief.' His companion took out a knife and placing the same on his abdomen said to him ''Take off your watch". In the meanwhile the appellant snatched h swatch from his left wrist and the chain of the watch was snapped. Both of them started running towards Connaught Place. Badlawan raised an alarm shouting "thief, thief" and chased the culprits. His shouts attracted Roop Narain (PW3) who was then on duty as a watchman at Municipal Market? Connaught Place. At that time the appellant was running from Minto Bridge side towards Plaza Cinema and Badlawan was chasing him, Roop Narain too started chasing the appellant and was able to overpower him with the help of the police officials who too arrived therein the meanwhile. The appellant was then holding the wrist watch, which he had snatched from Badlawan, in his right hand. It was seized from him by Head Constable Harphool Singh (PW5). However, the companion of the appellant managed to escape.

4. ASI Bhagat - Ram, who happened to be on patrol near Minto Bridge Crossing Connaught Place, was attracted on' seeing a crowd gathered near the Municipal Market. He recorded statement, Ex. PW2/ A, of Badlawan and sent the same to the Police Station under his endorsement Ex. PW8/A, for registration of a case. Head Constable Harphool Singh then made over the watch (Ex. P1) and handkerchief (Ex. P2), which too had been recovered from the appellant, to ASI Bhagat Ram and he took the same into possession with memo, Ex. PW2/B. On the personal search of the appellant, knife, (Ex. P3) was recovered from the right side pocket of the pants of the appellant. The same too was seized vide memo, Ex. PW2/G, and a separate rukka, Ex. PW6/B, was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case under the Arms Act.

5. The prosecution case further is that Mohd. Rafiq, who was companion of the appellant in the commission of robbery, was apprehended on 31st July 1982 at about 4.30 P.M. when he was present near Odean Cinema. The police party comprised SI Mahender Ram (PW7), ASI Bhagat Ram (PW8) and some subordinate police officials. A personal search of Mohd. Rafiq was effected and one spring actuated knife (Ex. P4) was recovered from his possession. It, was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW7/B and rukka, Ex. PW8/D was sent by ASI Bhagat Ram for registration of a case under the Arms Act against Mohd. Rafiq. On completion of investigation both the appellant and his co-accused were sent up for trial for offences under Section 392/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

6. Badlawan (PW2) is the victim of the robbery. He has deposed to the circumstances in which he was deprived of his wrist watch on the morning of' 28th July 1982 while he was returning home after finishing his duty at the Railway Station. He identified the appellant as the person who had covered his mouth with a handkerchief and who had snatched his watch. Further, he also d