IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.1996 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 564 of 1992) ******** Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.115 of 1996 ****** Muneshwar Bind @ Munna Bind, son of Sita Ram Bind, Resident of Village Thana Bigha, Police Station Ghoshi, Distt. Jehanabad. ------- Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar ----- Respondent ******* For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years as also under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence had been passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by a Judgment dated 18.3.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 564/1992. 2. The prosecution according to the PW-1, the Manage of Punjab National Bank, Noorsarai Branch is that a dacoity was committed in the bank on 28.10.1991 by some unknown persons aged about 20-25 years and while they were fleeing away, one of the dacoits was shot dead whereas the present Appellant was caught by the chasing party. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined 13 witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 are formal witnesses. PW-4 is a seizure witness who had been declared hostile. PW-10 is the Informant himself. PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are the bank employees who are on the factum of the occurrence whereas PW-7 is the Circle Officer who is inquest witness prepared on the dead body of the deceased dacoit. PW-8 and PW-9 are 2 the constables who are on the factum of occurrence whereas PW-11 also is a constable had been tendered. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer and PW-4 is a seizure witness. 4. On going through the evidence on record, I find that the material witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10 are consistent on the point that the dacoity was committed in the bank and while dacoits were fleeing away, one of the dacoits was shot dead whereas the Appellant was caught. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence and, therefore, in the result, the Appeal is dismissed. 5. However, it appears that the Appellant has remained in custody for about five years during trial and, therefore, substantially served out the sentences, so in the interest of justice, the period of sentence is modified to one already undergone by him 6. In the result the Appeal is dismissed with modification as mentioned above. (Anjana Prakash, J) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 24th day of June,2011 NAFR/S.ALI