Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.26 OF 1996 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.1.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1994] GANESH SAH S/O DHANESHWAR SAH @ SUHU SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAITHA, P.S. BENIPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI …………………….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Anish Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant has been convicted u/s.379 and 328 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three years and five years respectively by a judgment dated 18.1.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution is that while the informant (P.W.3) was travelling to his home on 25.6.1993 and was waiting for arrival of the train, two boys came to him and offered him a glass of tea after having entered into conversation with him and when he took tea, he became unconscious and he found his belongings having been stolen. When he arrived at Jamui Station, he found one of the two boys getting down from the train and when he raised an alarm, the present appellant was arrested. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3 is the informant. P.W.1 is the tea stall owner and was declared hostile. P.W.2 is the Drug Inspector, who proved the report about the tablet used in the occurrence. However, he stated that he himself did not chemically examine the tablet. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are on the factum of arrest of the appellant from the Railway Station, whereas P.W.6 and P.W.7 are formal witnesses. P.W.3, the informant, has identified the appellant as one of the persons, who had offered him tea and relieved him of his articles after he became unconscious. 4. In view of such unimpeachable evidence, it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. However, since the appellant has remained in custody for about three years, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Patna High Court Dated, 27th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )