IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 172 0f 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1989/4 of 1989) ------------ 1. SHAMBHU SAHNI, SON OF RAMAUTAR SAHNI 2. BULKAN SAHNI SON OF SUNAR SAHNI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE HARPUR BATRA, P.S. KURHANI AT PRESENT MANIYARI, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. For the Appellant : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha No. 3, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by a Judgment dated 27.7.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1989 /4 of 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the PW-1Awdhesh Kumar Singh is that a dacoity was committed in his house on the night of 9/10.2.1984 3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW-6 and PW-7 are formal witnesses. PW- 1 is the Informant whereas PW-2 is the co-villager of the Informant who came on hulla and identified the Appellants while fleeing away. PW-3 is also a co-villager but only on the point of factum of 2 occurrence. PW-4 another co-village is also on the factum of occurrence. Neither of them identified present Appellants in the transaction. PW-5 is the Doctor who held the post mortem of one of the dacoits who had died at the place of occurrence on account of the assault upon him by the co-villager. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 4. The prosecution case based mainly on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and from the perusal of their evidence there is no reason to discredit their testimony. They have given a truthful narration of the occurrence that took place in the house of PW-1 as also the manner in which the present Appellants were identified by them. 5. In view of such categorical and trustworthy evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the Appellants. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. However, considering that the Appellants have remained in custody for over six years during trial, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 7. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 5th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.