Judgment M. P. Varma, J. 1. There are two appellants, Mehadi Mian and Ibrahim mian. Both of them have preferred this appeal against the orders of conviction and sentence imposed on them by a judgment dated the 30th March, 1978, passed by Shree Satya Naryan Prasad Seth, Second Assistant Sessions Judge, madhubani. Both Mehadi Mian and Ibrahim Mian have been convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and each one of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. According to the prosecution, in between the night of the 20th and 21st of May, 1974, about 20-25 persons committed dacoity in village Basudeopur tole Balua, under Police Station Loukaha, in the district of Madhu bani, in the houses of Panchi Sah, Gafoor Mian Munar Sah, Asharfi Sah and Nandu sah, in which they took away properties worth several thousand. The Police registered a case at the Loukaha Police Station on the statement of Panchi Sah (P. W.7 ). He has stated that when he was sleeping at his darwaza, a gang of dacoits, carrying various weapons, torches, etc. , raided his house, some of them came up to him, woke him up, asked him not to raise Hulla aud demanded the keys of the boxes. In the meantime, some other companions of the dacoits, broke open the door of the shop of Panchi Sah, which was attached to his residential house, and looted away boxes containing cash, clothes and also a bag of rice. Some other dacoits entered the inner apartments, where his wife and children were sleeping and took away utensils and other articles. . His son, douyelal was also sleeping there and on his refusul to point out cash, he was beaten up by the dacoits. Panchi Sah, in his statement made before the Police, claimed to have identified three dacoits, Mehadi Mian (appellant No.1 ). Ibrahim Mian (appellant No.2 ), and one Matra Yadav. In his Fardbeyan, panchi Sah has given descriptions of some other by their faces in the light of the torches which the dacoits were carrying. He has stated that the dacoits while retreating committed dacoities in the neighbouring houses of different persons, as state above. 3. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet againat the aforesaid three accused. In his Fardbeyan, panchi Sah has given descriptions of some other by their faces in the light of the torches which the dacoits were carrying. He has stated that the dacoits while retreating committed dacoities in the neighbouring houses of different persons, as state above. 3. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet againat the aforesaid three accused. There was a. commitment inquiry under chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thus these two appellants were put on trial in the Sessions Court on the charge under Sec.395 of the indian Penal Code. I find from the records of the court below that the case of the third accused, Matar Yaday, had already been separated. 4. The prosecution, to substantiate the charge against the appellants, has examined 9 witnesses in all, but, it may be seen that Panchi Sah (P. W.7)is the sole identifying witness and all other witnesses have stated about the commission of dacoity only and have supported Panchi Sah to the extent that they had heard the names of the two appellants from Panchi Sah. Of course, i will discuse the relevancy and admissibility of their evidence at a later stage but, it may be stated in short that the acceptance or rejection of the statements of Panchi Sah is the only question posed before this court for consideration. 5. The evidence of Panchi Sah (P. W.7) has been bitterly criticised by shree T. N. Jha, counsel for the appellants, on the ground that conviction should not be based on the sole testimony of this witness, more so, when he is not corroborated by all others, who ran on Hulla at the alleged time of dacoity. 6. Panchi Sah (P. W.7) has stated in court while he was sleeping, a band of dacoits raided his house and two of them surrounded him and kept a watch on him till the other companions were engaged in removal of the articles from the inner apartments of the house. It is the admitted case that both these appellants were known to Panchi Sah from before the occurrence. It will be relevant to mention here that appellant Ibrahim, in his statement under Sec.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that there was some enmity with panchi Sah and this appellant since two years prior to the date of the occurrence. It will be relevant to mention here that appellant Ibrahim, in his statement under Sec.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that there was some enmity with panchi Sah and this appellant since two years prior to the date of the occurrence. It has been suggested to this witness in cross-examination that he had some land dispute with the father of Ibrahim, which, of course, has been denied by the witness. This fact, at least, leads to the conclusion that this appellant, ibrahim Mian, was known to P. W.7 since long. I, therefore, feel that there is no reasonable ground to reject the testimony of P. W.7 on the factum of identification when he claims to have seen the appellants in the flash of torchlight. It will be relevant to further repeat here that according to the statemnet of this witness (P. W.1), both the appallants kept him surrounded for long, so much so that they silenced him on the point of threat, made him to sit on the cot on which he was sleeping: and they made a demand of the keys also from him. Thus, I find that he had ample opportunity to look at the appellants and, in my opinion, the court below has rightly relited upon his evidance. 7. A question arises, as posed by Mr. T. N. Jha, learned Counsel for the appellants, whether conviction can be based on the sole testimony of this witness. It is not the number of witnesses which matters in court, it is rather the quality that counts. Numerology is not the criterion of judging the merit of a case. Credibility of a witness has to be judged and, in my opinion, if even one witness is found to be trustworthy, his evidence can safely be the back for conviction. Viewing this case from this angle I find that the evidence of P. W.7 is quite trustworthy and there is absolutely no reason to reject the same, inasmuch as, he has been amply corroborated by some of the witnesses who are said to have come to his house on hearing the Hulla raised by him, after the retreat of the dacoits. P. W.7 has clearly stated that he talked to each one of them who came on Hulla, spoke about the loot of the properties and also gave out to them the names of the appellants whom he could identify. On this point, a reference may be made to the evidence of P. W.1, Asharfi Sah, who lived in the neighbourhood. He has stated that on hearing the Hulla of dacoity, he ran towards Nawatoli and cried out the dacoits has raided the house of panchi Sah. When he got back with some of the villagers, the dacoits had run away and he could learn from Panchi Sah that he had identified these two appellants as amongst the dacoits. He has further stated that some of the dacoits removed some articles from his house also, worth Rs.50.- The other witnesses are P. W.2, Ajablal Thakur, P. W.3 Abdul Gafoor, P. W.4 Munar sah, P. W.6, Nand Lal, P. W.8, Abdul Rauf and P. W.9, Babuyelal Sah. I have already stated above, that all these witnesses have their houses in the neighbourhood of P. W.7. The dacoits, who had come to this village and raided the tola Balua, where all these persons lived, committed dacoity in the houses of some of these witnesses also. Of course, in their statement in court they have tried to shield the two appellants, by making a denial on the point that P. W.7, panchi Sah, had given out the names of any of the dacoits, when they happened to meet him. This is almost unsuccessful attempt on behalf of the defence to gain over these witnesses. I find that P. W.2 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and the court below did not place reliance on his testimony. P. W.3 abdul Gafoor, is also one of the victims. The dacoits had raided, his" house also and committed dacoity of a sewing machine, clothes and ornaments kept therein. He has admitted that he personally could not identify any of the dacoits in the case, but he could know the names of the appellants then and there when he rushed to the house of Panchi Sah. The dacoits had raided, his" house also and committed dacoity of a sewing machine, clothes and ornaments kept therein. He has admitted that he personally could not identify any of the dacoits in the case, but he could know the names of the appellants then and there when he rushed to the house of Panchi Sah. P. W.4 is another witness, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but, I find in his evidence that he could learn the names of the dacoits, i. e. , these appellants, from Panchi sah in the following morning, but, of course, not in the night. It cannot be exactly said, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that this witness in any manner contradicts P. W.7. The only criticism that can be advanced is that he could not get the names, as stated by him, of the appellants from Panchi Sah in the night. But, in the same breath in cross examination he admits that he stated before the police that he learnt the names of the appellants from Panchi Sah P. W.6 also has admitted in cross examination that he could get the names of the appellants from Panchi Sah in the latter part of the night at about 3 or 4 a. m. The evidence of P. W.8, who of course, he, has been declared hostile, contradicts the evidence of P. W.7 on the point that panchi Sah did not tell him the names of the appellants as amongst the dacoits. 8. To sum up, I may again state that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant as I find that Panchi Sah, in fact, if at all, has been contradicted by P. W.8 alone and by no other witnesses, in some form or the other, have admitted that Panchi Sah spoke to them regarding the participation of these two appellants in the dacoity committed in his house. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that there has been a long delay in lodging the first information report and it appears that Panchi sah, to take revenge of the old grudge, concocted a false story and got these two appellants entangled in the case. To my mind, there is no force in the contention. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that there has been a long delay in lodging the first information report and it appears that Panchi sah, to take revenge of the old grudge, concocted a false story and got these two appellants entangled in the case. To my mind, there is no force in the contention. I gather from the first infromation report that the Police Station is ten miles away from village Basudeopur, Tole Balue. The dacoity was committed in the night. It appears obvious that on the day following sometimes in the mornining the informant set out for the Police Station and was naturally some what late in reaching there, and this by it self, will not discredit the entire case of the prosecution. Judging the case from this aspect, I once again consider and find that P. W.9 is the son. of the informant P. W.7, Panchi Sah. This witness P. W.9, Babuyelal Sah, was sleeping in the inner apartment of the house. He has stated that some of the dacoits asked him to point out cash and other articles, which he refused, on which he was assaulted too. If there would have been any conspiracy for hatching up a case, Panchi Sah could very well have put the names of these two appellants in the mouth of his son, Babuyelal Sah and he would have been the most convenient witness on the factum of identification, as he was sleeping in the same house- But this was not done. Babuyelal Sah (P. W.9) does not speak regarding identification of any of the dacoits. We get the evidence regarding identification not only from Panchi Sah, but from all others who came running to the scene of the occurrence and have categorically stated that panchi Sah gave out the names of the thre eaccused, i. e. , of these two appellants and one Matar Yadav, whose trial has been separated. 10. It has been then urged that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined. True it is that the investigating officer was not put in the witness box. The question remains, whether any prejudice has been causee to the appellants on account of the non-examination of this witness. I may only be repeating here once again that the factum of dacoity has not been challenged. True it is that the investigating officer was not put in the witness box. The question remains, whether any prejudice has been causee to the appellants on account of the non-examination of this witness. I may only be repeating here once again that the factum of dacoity has not been challenged. On the point of identification, the evidence has been discussed above in full detail. Nothing has been brought on the record, requiring the examination of the investigating officer to contradict any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. To make it more clear, I may like to say that nothing has been elicited in crose examination from any of the witnesses to contradict any part of his statement made at the earlier stage before the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, as discused above, some of the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and attention of those witnesses have been drawn to their statements made earlier before the investigating officer, to contradict them, and, if there is any cause of action, it is on behalf of the prosecution, who could have reasonably raised objection for the non-examination, of the investigating officer. But, so far as the appellants are concerned, the learned Counsel could not persuade me to hold that there has been any prejudice whatsoever due to the non-examination of this witness, and, as such I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court on this score. 11. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellants has addressed this court on the question of sentence imposed on these two appellants, The sentence of imprisonment as passed by the Court below is of ten years against each of these two appellants. So far as the case against these two appellants is concerned, it is stated that they, along with other dacoits, raided the house of p. W.7 has said that these two appellants kept him surrounded and remained there till the other companions entered inside the apartment and committed loot of the properties. In other words, the learned Counsel has submitted that the prosecution did not allege at any stage that these two appellant removed any farthing from the house of the informant, Panchi Shah, or from the house of any other person living in the neighbourhood, inasmuch as it has not been alleged anywhere that they participated even in the assault. In other words, the learned Counsel has submitted that the prosecution did not allege at any stage that these two appellant removed any farthing from the house of the informant, Panchi Shah, or from the house of any other person living in the neighbourhood, inasmuch as it has not been alleged anywhere that they participated even in the assault. It is in evidence that some other dacoits assaulted the son of Panchi Sah. Taking this aspect into consideration, I think that the imprisonment of seven years will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the period of ten years rigorous imprisonment, as imposed by the court below on these two appellants, is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and each one of the appellants is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is needless to mention here that that they are entitled to get set off for the period of substantive sentence, the period spent in jail in this case during investigation, inquiry and trial of the case. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.