JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant who was convicted u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years has,preferred this appeal. 2. At trial, there were two accused persons. Accused Purna Chandra Sahoo has been acquitted. 3. Case of the prosecution is that at about 7.30 p. m. on 21-2-1982, five or six persons entered into the house of p.w. It they committed dacoity, removed the articles and left the place. P. W. 1 reported the matter at the Police-Station on the same day at about 10.30 p. m. 4. The defence plea is one of complete denial. 5. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses. P. ws. 1, Rameswardayal Khandelwalla, his wife Kausalya (p.w. 4), their daughter Sabitri (p.w. 5) and son Ramesh (p.w. 6) are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 8 another son of p.w. 1 who was outside stated the events happening outside his house at the time of commission of the offence. P. W. 10 one Panchanan Behera was on Patrol duty. P. w. 9 a member of the Jubak Sangha of village Nodhana was accompanying the patrol party. They found a group of persons numbering about 15, coming from San Deuli side and proceeding towards Jamsola. When questioned by the witnesses, they began to run to be chased by the witnesses. Appellant fell down on the embankment of the tank and was caught by the witness and Panchanan with the brief case. Subsequently, when the brief case was opened, the stolen articles were found inside. 6. In the First Information report, the accused persons were not named. The Appellant was identified by P.Ws. 1 and 4 to 6. From the evidence, it is found that the Appellant was serving under p.w. 1. Besides, these witnesses had occasion to see the Appellant in the Jubak Sangha office when the brief case was opened. The identification would not thus, be of any assistance to the prosecution since the accused persons were known earlier. The statement of the Magistrate conducting the Test Identification parade that the witnesses told him that the Appellant was serving under p.w. 1 is not reflected in the report. However the learned Magistrate cannot be disbelieved on,that ground. Mr. The identification would not thus, be of any assistance to the prosecution since the accused persons were known earlier. The statement of the Magistrate conducting the Test Identification parade that the witnesses told him that the Appellant was serving under p.w. 1 is not reflected in the report. However the learned Magistrate cannot be disbelieved on,that ground. Mr. D. P. Sahu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing as the Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the learned Magistrate is of such a vague character that it should not be given any weight. True it is that the learned Magistrate said that the witnesses as far as he remembers stated so. However such a statement of the witnesses to the learned Magistrate is of special importance and there is nothing improbable that the learned Magistrate remembered the same. No endeavour has been made by the prosecution to,explain such a statement either by declaring the witness hostile and cross-examining him or by re-examining him. In the circumstances. 1 am not able to accept the submission of Mr. D. P. Sahu. Mr. P. K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has rightly submitted that the test identification parade would be of no value in the circumstances of the case and cannot be a circumstance to bring home the guilt of the Appellant. 7. Mr. Mohanty thereafter submitted that the possession of the stolen articles by the Appellant is also not acceptable. If the same is discarded, there is no material to connect the Appellant with the commission of the offence. P. Ws. 9 and 10 who were members of the patrol party saw the group of persons numbering about 10 to 15, of which Appellant is one. All the accused persons excepting the Appellant ran away. The Appellant fen down and could be caught with the brief case containing the stolen articles. This statement of the witnesses is not worthless. It inspires confidence. Mr. Mohanty strenuously argued that Panchanan the Havildar in the patrol party not having been examined, adverse inference ought to be drawn. When there are several witnesses of the same nature, examination of one is sufficient. No adverse inference can be drawn on account of the failure to examine other witnesses. Possession of the stolen articles by the Appellant is thus proved. 8. Mr. When there are several witnesses of the same nature, examination of one is sufficient. No adverse inference can be drawn on account of the failure to examine other witnesses. Possession of the stolen articles by the Appellant is thus proved. 8. Mr. Mohanty submitted that the possession of the stolen articles may bring home the guilt of being receiver of stolen property. It will not be the basis for conviction u/s 395, 1. P. Coo He relied upon the decision reported in Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1986 S.C. 129. in support of his contention. As the decision discloses, the only evidence there is the recovery of stolen articles immediately after the occurrence. The said decision would not be applicable to this case where the conduct of the Appellant and the circumstances under; which the stolen articles were recovered hardly two hours after the occurrence. The Appellant was in company of others. When asked by p.w. 10, they ran away to be chased by p.w. 10 and other . Appellant was also running away. He fell down to be caught. The key was not with the Appellant for which the brief case was to be broken. This clearly leads to the inference that the Appellant was one of the group committing the offence of dacoity. 9. The Appellant has been sentenced to nine years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence no doubt is within the limits prescribed under the law. Dacoity is a heinous crime. It is to be severely dealt with. However, nine years rigorous imprisonment is disproportionate. In this case, the inmates were not injured at all. There is also discrepancy as to the weapon of offence used by the accused persons to intimidate the inmates for committing the offence. It is true that bombs were blasted outside the house to terrorise die villagers who were likely to resist. Inspite of the fact that p.w. 3 was injured, as a result of bomb blasting outside the house of p.w. 1, the injuries are not of serious nature. P. w. 3 went to the Primary Health Centre himself and got himself medically examined and treated. The nature of the injury has not been explained by him. P. w. 1 has not disclosed that the Appellant was his servant in the past. The other accused person has been acquitted. P. w. 3 went to the Primary Health Centre himself and got himself medically examined and treated. The nature of the injury has not been explained by him. P. w. 1 has not disclosed that the Appellant was his servant in the past. The other accused person has been acquitted. Accordingly, on account of the nature of the offence committed in this case, I reduce the sentence of the Appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to reduction of sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment. unhesitatingly record that Mr. P. K. Mohanty who was appointed by the Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Board in this case has ably submitted all the facts and law to put forth the case of the Appellant. Final Result : Dismissed