Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.54 of 1996 *** Against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.55 of 1995 *** 1. UPENDRA MUKHIYA son of Chalitra Mukhiya, resident of village- Demami Tola Jainagar, P.S. Belsand, District- Sitamarhi 2. Lakshmi Rai son of Sarwajeet Rai, resident of village- Pamra, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi & 3. Naresh Mukhiya son of Ram Shresth Mukhiya, resident of village- Demami Tola Jainagar, District- Sitamarhi …Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ...Respondent *** For the appellants : M/s Jitendra Kumar & Alok Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. M. K. Khare, 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 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by judgment dated 31.01.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.55 of 1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.1994 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant (P.W. 1), whereafter the dacoits were chased and three of them were apprehended in the adjoining fields. From the possession of the appellant no.1, an old Sarree was recovered, whereas, from the possession of appellant no.2 a cartridge was recovered. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is informant, P.W. 2 is his brother and P.W. 3 is his mother. P.W. 4 is the - 2 - Investigating Officer and P.W.5 is the Doctor, who examined the informant who was also injured in the transaction. 4. During trial, I find that P.W. 2 and 3 stated that no looted article was recovered from any of the apprehended accused even though the initial story was that from the possession of the appellant no.1 an old Saree had been recovered which was identified by P.W.3. However, the three witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have fully corroborated the fact that the appellants were the ones who had participated in the occurrence. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. However, considering that the appellants have remained in custody for more than three years, I am inclined to modify the sentence to one that has already undergone by them during trial. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 20th June, 2011 NAFR / JA/-