JUDGMENT

1. Nishant and Rohit challenge the impugned judgment dated 26th May, 2016 convicting them for offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th May, 2016 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

2. Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for Rohit contends that the appellant was never identified by the only witness that is the complainant. Moreover, the arrest memo which was made at the park contains the signature of the appellant's mother who was never present at the park. The medical report of the appellant mentions that he suffered injuries because of the public but no public witness has been examined. He further submitted that according to the complaint of Ram Singh, Rs.1300/- was snatched from him but a total recovery of Rs.700/- only has been made from both the appellants. No TIP was conducted. He also urges that as per the Nominal Roll of the Appellant his conduct is satisfactory in jail and no case is pending against him. Thus, he be acquitted.

3. Learned