( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22-11-1985 of Mr. V. S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant under Sections 392 and 397 Indian Penal Code. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, and further sentencing him under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine Rs. 200. 00 and again in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprison ment for 6 months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were further ordered to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE appellant, Salim, along with two others, namely, Satish Kumar and Avadh Kumar, was charged firstly for an offence under Sections 392/34 I. P. C. and secondly for an offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. read with Section 392 Indian Penal Code. The first charge against these three persons was that on 22-8-1984 at about 7. 30 p. m at Pushta behind Adarsh Nagar near Nullah within the jurisdiction of Police Station Adarsh Nagar, they committed robbery by robbing Singh Ram of his diary and Rs. 200. 00 and also a wrist watch and robbing Tejbir Singh of Rs. 20. 00 , and the second charge was that at the said date, time and place while committing robbery aforesaid, they were armed with deadly weapons, to wit knives.

( 3 ) THE prosecution alleged that Singh Ram and Tejbir Singh were related to each other and that on 22-8-1984 they went to the house of one Narinder at Jehangirpuri in the evening and had their meals there. They left the house of Narinder at about 7. 00 p. m. and as they were walking back when they reached near culvert, four persons surrounded them. Three of them were armed with knives. At the point of knife, one of the said persons took the watch of Singh Ram and also took Rs. 200. 00 from his pocket. In that process that person inflicted a knife blow on the left forearm of Singh Ram. In the same very process Tejbir Singh was deprived of Rs. 20. 00. The four persons after committing robbery escaped.

( 4 ) THE police was informed and they started investigation. Singh Ram was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. Dr. K. K. Gupta, who examined him, found one incised wound on left forearm, posterior aspect middle part 2 cm x cm skin deep. The wound was bleeding at the time of his examination and it was opined that the injury was caused by a sharp weapon. Out of four persons involved in the robbery only three could be apprehended. First accused Avadh Kumar was arrested on 30-8-1984. On his making a disclosure statement, watch of Singh Ram was recovered and seized. Accused. Satish Kumar was also stated to have been arrested on the same day while he was coming to the court. The third accused Salim, the appellant, was arrested on 30-12-1984 under the Arms Act. He is also stated to have made a disclosure statement regarding the occurrence in question so as to connect him with the crime. Both Avadh Kumar and Satish Kumar refused to participate in the identification parade. Salim accused was identified in the identification parade held on 4-1-1985 by Singh Ram. When date was fixed for his identification again as Tejbir Singh was not present on the earlier date, Salim accused refused to join the identification parade. After the investigation was complete, the police sent in the challan and the accused were charged as above-mentioned.

( 5 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and gave up the rest. Statements of the accused were recorded. They denied their involvement. Accused Salim stated that it was on 27-12-1984 that he was taken away from his house at about 8,30 p. m. and was kept in the police post Jehangirpuri for four days and thereafter falsely implicated in the case. In support of his plea, he examined his brother Nariruddin as DW 1 who also broug