Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.190 of 1998 **** Against the judgment, dated 26. 03.1998, passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, I, Darbhanga, in S. Tr. No. 219 of 1996 **** Rajesh Prasad @ Raju, son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kadirabad, P.S. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, district Darbhanga .. Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellant ... Mr. Amish Kumar Jha,Adv. For the Respondent .. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J, Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 392 read with 397 of the Penal Code 25(1-B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 3 years and 4 years respectively. 3. The prosecution case is with regard to the dacoity in the post office and the appellant was caught with a jhola containing 2 cash of Rs.70,000/- along with a fire arm. However, the charge was framed under Sections 411, 307, 392 of the Penal Code and 27(1) and 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, however, the appellant was acquitted for offence under Section 307 and 411 of the Penal Code, but, convicted under Section 392 read with Sections 397 of the Penal Code as well as 25(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that though the charge was framed under Section 392 read with 397 of the Penal Code, but, has been convicted for offence under Section 397 of the Penal Code with a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant has remained in jail for about three years, i.e., from 20.10.1995 to 15.09.1998. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1994 Supl. (3) 727 (Sukhwinder Singh @ Jaggi Vrs. State of Punjab) where though the charge was framed under Sections 397/511 of the Penal Code, but, conviction recorded under Section 397 with sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years was held to be excessive and the sentence was reduced to five years. Hence, it is contended that under fact and circumstance a lenient view be taken. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, since, the occurrence is of the year 1995 and the appellant remained in jail since 1995 to 1998 for a period of three years and the appellant has suffered a lot and, further charge framed under Section 392 of the Penal Code, but, conviction recorded under Section 397 of the Penal Code and, hence, the end of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellant for the 3 period already undergone. 5. With the modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court The 30th day of August, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.