Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.2.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.H05/2014, convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 394 & 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years & fine of Rs.1,000/- & RI for 7 years & fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clauses.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 30.12.2013 complainant Laxman Dhruv was performing his duty as night-guard. At about 1.30 a.m. in the midnight, two persons came in a car bearing registration No.CG-12-R-8084 and one of them came to the complainant and asked to help him in unloading five gunny bags of paddy, which were loaded in truck CG No.04JB0212, and to keep it in the standing car. When complainant and his companion Sushil Sen opposed, unknown assailants assaulted Sushil Sen with a knife and caused injuries on his face, hand & thigh and thereafter forcibly unloaded 5 gunny bags of paddy each weighing 40 kg of paddy worth Rs.2,000/- and kept in the car. Mobile sets of truck driver Rajesh Kumar Singh and Sushil Sen were also looted by said unknown persons and thereafter they fled from the spot. FIR ExP-1 was lodged in the police-station on the basis of which offence under Section 394 of IPC was registered. Injured Sushil Sen was medically examined and provided treatment. During investigation, at the instance of appellant, car bearing Registration No.CG-12R-8084, one Samsung mobile phone and 5 gunny bags each containing 40 kg of paddy were seized from his possession. At the instance of absconding accused, one Nokia mobile phone and one knife was seized from his possession. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.

3. Charges under Sections 394 r/w Section 397 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 were framed against the appellant, he denied the same and sought for trial. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by appellant in his defence. Appellant stands convicted and sentenced in the impugned judgment.

4. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that the appellant has been erroneously convicted by the Court below without there being evidence showing involvement of appellant in the offence in question beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged against unknown persons. When the appellant and absconding accused were apprehended in this case they were not subjected to any test identification parade, which was very much necessary in this case as accused persons were unknown to the complainant and injured persons. The dock identification made by Laxman PW-1 and Sushil Sen PW-2 is not a reliable evidence. Sukhmel Singh PW-3, Jhaneshwar Verma PW-11 & Derharam PW-12 have falsified the statement of other witnesses by stating that they do not recognize the appellant and absconding accused as the persons engaged in the commission of offence. The witnesses of search and seizure have also not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, it is submitted that it is a case of no evidence and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. In the alternative, it is submitted, that if this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal then, in the given facts and circumstances of case, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced, as it is too harsh.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grounds raised in this appeal as also the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that Laxman PW-1 and Sushil Sen PW-2 both have clearly supported the prosecution case and identified the appellant and absconding accused before the Court. For the reason that no TIP has been conducted in this case, the dock