1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 2009 Vikas alias Umesh Babu Nayaka .Appellant Age : 28 years Residing at Hotel Sai Prasad, Satrasta, Mahalaxmi, Worli, Mumbai  400 011. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.Nilesh Wable i/b. Mr.Umesh Mankapure, Advocate, for the Appellant Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT . This Appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) (b) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven 2 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- respectively imposed on the two counts by the learned Special Judge under MCOC Act on conclusion of trial of Special Case No.7 of 2005 before him. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the two co-accused, who had been convicted along with the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(b) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act and similarly sentenced seven and one years imprisonment respectively had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2005 which was disposed of on 17th October, 2008 by this Court. This Court had confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and as regards sentences the following observation was made. 3 However, so far as the sentences are concerned, the Appellants are in jail since last about three years. It is submitted that the Trial Court had acquitted the Accused of the serious offences with which they were charged. The Complainant and other person who were present there at the time of offence were not injured or assaulted by the Accused. Taking into consideration, these facts, in my view the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is liable to be reduced from seven years to 4 ½ years. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the present appellant is not different from that of the two appellants whose sentences had been reduced by this Court from seven years to four and half years in the said appeal. Therefore, he submits that his client also may be similarly treated, though he had not preferred an appeal along with the co-accused. 3. The learned APP submitted that since this Court had observed that appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1061 of 2005 had not injured 4 the complainant and other person, who were present there at the time of offence, it would be necessary to examine the record to find out whether present appellant had caused any injury to the complainant and others, which may then justify a higher sentence to the appellant. The learned APP, therefore, took me through the record. The record shows that PW-3 Vikram Navalmal Mehta had stated that co-accused Ajay Anilkumar Shrivastav had put the chopper at his neck and asked him to sit down. He had also stated that the offender, who had kept the chopper at his neck had searched his pant pocket and taken Rs.20,000/- from his pant pocket and when Vikram Mehta was about to protest, he took out string and tied his hand and legs. Ajay Shrivastav had also kicked him in the stomach as a result of which Vikram fell down. PW-6 Dr. Manohar Dattatray Dhaigude had stated that he had examined Vikram Mehta, who had come to him with alleged history of blunt trauma on abdomen 5 at 7.00 p.m. on 8th January, 2005. Dr.Dhaigude had also examined the present appellant, who had been brought by police but had not noticed any external injuries. Thus, it is clear that the present appellant had not caused any injuries to complainant or not other person at the time of robbery. Since co-accused Ajay Anilkumar Shrivastav alias Arun Bharat Chauhan, who had, in fact, assaulted Vikram Mehta, has been sentenced to imprisonment for four and half years by allowing his appeal, there is no justification for giving different treatment to the appellant. 4. In view of this, while conviction of the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 25(1-B)(b) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act is maintained, the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 397 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four and half years. The sentence for the offence punishable 6 under Section 25(1-B)(b) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act as well as fine imposed on two counts is maintained. The appellant would be entitled to have the period of detention in custody prior to his conviction set off against sentences now imposed. 5. Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)