Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 289 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 25.09.1997 passed by Sri Alakh Kumar Dubey, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 86/94. ************ Kallu Mian, S/o Md. Suleman, Resident of Paharpur Toi, P.S.-Deseri, Dist.-Vaishali. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. K.N. Diwakar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 86/94 by a judgment dated 25.09.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, Rameshwar Rai is that when he was sleeping in his house in the night of 09/10.12.1991 he saw 5-6 persons roaming around his house whereas another set of 5-6 persons entered his house out of which he identified the present appellant. The accused persons threatened the informant and other inmates of the house and committed dacoity by removing the door and took away the household articles from his house. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W 1 Manglesh Rai, P.W. 2 Binod Rai, P.W. 4 Maheshwar Rai are the three eye witnesses. P.W. 3 is the informant. P.W. 5, Vijoy Prasad Singh and P.W. 6, Nagina Rai are seizure witnesses but they have turned 2 hostile. P.W. 7, Prahaladi Paswan, Dafadar is a formal witness. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, I find that all of them have supported the fact that on the night of occurrence while they were sleeping inside the house 3-4 persons entered into the house and took away the household articles and three boxes containing clothes and when the villagers reached there they identified the appellant, Kallu Mian as one of the dacoits. From the evidence of these four vital witnesses, I do not find any reason to discard either the factum of occurrence or the fact that the appellant was one of the miscreants and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is hereby confirmed. 5. However, considering that the appellant has remained in custody for about six years and twenty years have elapsed since the date of occurrence the period of sentence is modified to the period already under by him during trial. 6. With the aforesaid modifications in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 18th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-