JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal (jail) by Pati Ram son of Chhiddi against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, dated January 9, 1976, convicting the appellant under section 395 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case relates to a dacoity which took place on the intervening night between June 30, 1973 and July 1,1973 at the house of one Pritam Brahmin P. W. 1. It is alleged that the dacoity was committed by 10 to 11 persons, out of whom six persons entered the house of Pritam and the remaining persons remained outside the house. Some of the dacoits had guns with them. The dacoits took away ornaments, cash amount and other property. 3. A report about the incident was lodged by complainant Pritam at the Police Station Bari on July 1, 1793. Accused Patiram was sent to judicial lock-up on July 9, 1973. At the identification parade held on September 8, 1973, Vipti Ram P. W. 2, Khusi Ram P. W. 9 and Pritam P.W. 1 correctly identified the accused-appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the identification evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and came to the conclusion that the accused-appellant participated in the dacoity. It was, however, found that the accused-appellant, though armed with gun, did not use the gun. No other over-act was assigned to the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, convicted the appellant under section 325 I. P. C. and sentenced him as afore said. 4. Dissatisfied with the said judgement, the accused-appellant has filed this appeal. 5. On the merits, there is no room for any doubt that a, dacoity took place at the house of Pritam on the night between June 30,1973 and July 1. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant 'participated in the dacoity. To connect the appellant with the dacoity, there is identification evidence of P.W.l. Pritam, P.W 2, Vipti and P.W.3. Khushi Ram. All of them present at the house of Pritam. They have correctly identified the accused appellant at the identification parade as well as in the Court. To connect the appellant with the dacoity, there is identification evidence of P.W.l. Pritam, P.W 2, Vipti and P.W.3. Khushi Ram. All of them present at the house of Pritam. They have correctly identified the accused appellant at the identification parade as well as in the Court. They have further stated that the appellant was one of the dacoits who participated in the dacoity. I see no good ground to disbelieve the testimony of the said witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, has rightly convicted the appellant of the offence under section, 395 I. P. C. 6. It is next contended that the sentence of four year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is too severe. 7. The accused-appellant did not actively participate in the dacoity and although he is said to have been armed with a gun, he did not use the same. In the circumstances the sentences awarded to the appellant appears to be excessive. 8. The accused-appellant has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than three years. Looking to the circumstances of the case, I think the ends of justice will sufficiently meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant under section 395 I. P. C. is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him, 9. In the result, I allow the appeal in part, and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduce the sentence from 4 Year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. The accused-appellant shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. *******