JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. Manish Dubey and Navin challenge the impugned judgment dated 16th December, 2015 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 397 IPC read with Section 392/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 22nd December, 2015 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Manish Dubey contends that the appellant was not arrested at the spot. He was arrested in another FIR being FIR No. 3/2012 and on the basis of disclosure statement of Navin, appellant was arrested in the present FIR. There was no recovery from the appellant either of the robbed goods or the pistol. He refused for test identification parade because he was shown to witnesses in the police station. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as 1994 (30) DRJ 291 Anoop Singh v. The State. CCTV footage has not been produced in evidence and no satisfactory explanation has been rendered why CCTV was shut at the time of incident. Furthermore, stating exact robbed amount immediately after t