JUDGEMENT Srivastava, J.:- These appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 17-7-84 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sec. 395, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. In Criminal Appeal No. 101/84 the appellants are Fakar Uddin Laskar and Fakir Ali and in Criminal Appeal No. 107/84 the appellants are Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from the FIR (Ext. 1) lodged at 8.30 a.m. on 13-2-81 at Udharband P.S. by Chinu Deb (P.W. 1) was that in the night of 12/13-2-81 at about 1.30 a.m. 10/12 persons had committed dacoity in his shop house at the back side of the hospital of the tea garden. The dacoits had forcibly entered the shop house, assaulted the inmates the informant, his brothers and sister and had taken away the cash box containing Rs. 500/- and two HMT wrist watches. In the electric light which had been switched on, the dacoits were identified. Mohamuddin, one of the dacoits was caught and also beaten by the people who had assembled on alarm raised. The said dacoit has revealed the names of the other 11 dacoits which was noted by PW. 1 Chinu Deb in a paper (Ext. 2). The information about the occurrence was sent through one Mritunjoy, who contacted the Police over telephone. The Police at Udharband P.S. on receipt of telephonic information made G.D. Entry No. 315 of 13-2-81 to that effect. The Investigating Officer A. Dutta on receipt of information left for the place of occurrence. He found a number of tea garden labour and Mohamuddin dacoit tied with a post. The FIR (Ext. 1) was handed to the Investigating Officer. Mohamuddin dacoit was taken into police custody and sent for treatment, but soon after died. The Investigating Officer seized various articles from the place of occurrence and sent message for arresting the accused persons. On 14-2-81, P.W. 8 Chandra Saikia, S.I. Laskhipur P.S. on receipt of information arrested accused Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha and recovered one of the wrist watches from accused Tombi Singha. Test Identification Parade was held and the said accused were identified. Accused Fakaruddin and Fakir Ali were arrested on 14-3-81 and on 22-4-81 accused Kamaluddin was arrested. On 6-4-81, the second T.I.P. was held for identification of accused Fakaruddin and Fakar Ali and Motai Mia. Test Identification Parade was held and the said accused were identified. Accused Fakaruddin and Fakir Ali were arrested on 14-3-81 and on 22-4-81 accused Kamaluddin was arrested. On 6-4-81, the second T.I.P. was held for identification of accused Fakaruddin and Fakar Ali and Motai Mia. Accused Bhim Singha made confessional statement on 18-2-81. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. 3. At the trial before the learned Sessions Judge charge under Sec. 395, IPC against the appellants and one Jamiruddin was framed to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of the charge examined P.W. 1 Chinu Deb, P.W. 3 Milan Deb and P.W. 7 Dilip Deb all brothers and inmates of the house where the dacoity was committed, who identified the appellants and testified about the occurrence. P. W. 2 Dr. B.B. Das who had examined the injuries of Chinu Deb, Milan Deb, Dilip Deb and their sister Swapna Deb on 14-2-81 at Udharband State Dispensary and had found injuries on their person. P.W. 5 Behari Singh who was witness to recovery of material Exhibit-14 (wrist watch) from accused Tombi Singha on 14-2-81 who was however, declared hostile. The prosecution also examined P.W. 8 Chandra Saikia, S.I. who had arrested accused Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha on 14-2-81, the Investigating Officer P.W. 10 A. Dutta and P.W. 9 Shri G.K. Dutta, the Magistrate who had recorded the confessional statement of Bhim Singha. The accused in their examination under Sec. 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred as the Code, had denied the prosecution allegation and stated that the police had arrested them out of grudge. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence held that the prosecution had established that dacoity as alleged was committed and that the appellants had committed the said offence. The appellants were convicted, under Sec. 395, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Accused Jamiruddin was acquitted. 4. Aggrieved, appellants have come to this Court and Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants Fakaruddin Laskar and Fakir Ali and Dr. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellants Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha have contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge and as such their conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel submitted that G. D. Entry (Ext. A) was the first information of the crime to the police and hence Ext. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellants Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha have contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge and as such their conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel submitted that G. D. Entry (Ext. A) was the first information of the crime to the police and hence Ext. 1 (F.I.R.) having been handed over to the I.O. (P.W. 10) A. Dutta when he had already commenced investigation could not be considered as first information and under Sec. 162 of the Code was inadmissible in evidence. Mr. Choudhury has further submitted that identification held after considerable delay could not be reliable evidence to connect the appellants with the offence committed. It was also submitted that in Ext. 2 the paper on which P.W. 1 Chinu Deb was said to have taken down the names of the dacoits as given by Mohamuddin, the dacoit who died, the name was 'Fakar' and hence it could not mean 'Fakaruddin Laskar' the appellant, that even in the confession of Bhim Singh the name given was Fakar Ali and hence the identity of the said appellant was not established. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the prosecution had not been able to establish the charge against the appellants. 5. Mr. D. Goswami learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution was reliable and there was no reason at all for the prosecution witnesses Chinu Deb, Milan Deb and Dilip Deb to falsely implicate the appellants, that the prosecution evidence clearly established that 'dacoity' had been committed and the names of the accused persons were revealed by Mahamuddin the dacoit who was apprehended by the people and there was absolutely no reason to question the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that for Bhim Singha and Tombi Singha who had been arrested earlier T.I.P. was held on 19-2-81 and for accused Fakaruddin and Fakir Ali who were arrested later T.I.P. was held on 6-4-81. He has accordingly submitted that there was absolutely no reason to doubt the reliability of the prosecution case and the evidence in its support. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions for the appellants and the evidence on record. 7. He has accordingly submitted that there was absolutely no reason to doubt the reliability of the prosecution case and the evidence in its support. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions for the appellants and the evidence on record. 7. The evidence of P.W. 1 Chinu Deb, P.W. 3 Milan Deb and P.W. 7 Dilip Deb even though they were brothers was reliable and their evidence satisfactorily established that on the night of 12/13.2.81 dacoity was committed in their shop house, for there was nothing to show that they had any reason to falsely implicate any one. The information about the offence was promptly given to the police. Mritunjoy Deb was immediately contacted to inform about the occurrence, as was well established from the G.D. Entry No. 335 of 13-2-81 (Ext. A). The information was important, in that the G.D. entry stated that at about 1.30 in the night 10/12 dacoits broke open a portion of the door of the shop house and entered it, that the dacoits used bullet shot and one dacoit Mahamuddin was caught by the people, was assaulted and his condition was serious. This was followed by the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) which was handed over to the Investigating Officer when he arrived at the spot. We do not propose to consider the question that whether the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was hit by the provision of Sec. 162 of the Code, for the reason, that even if the said F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was excluded from consideration no substantial difference was caused to the evidence against the appellants. The information in the G.D. entry (Ext. A) itself amply bears out the version given by P.W. 1 Chinu Deb and his brothers that the dacoits had taken away the cash box and wrist watches and that the people had held Mahamuddin. The apprehension of Mahamuddin by the people and assault by the people, together with the fact that he was handed over to the police, when it arrived on the spot in the morning, provides very satisfactory corroborative support to the prosecution evidence, which left no doubt, about the veracity of the prosecution witnesses whose evidence established that dacoity had been committed in the shop house of P.W. 1 Chinu Deb. 8. P.W, 2 Dr. 8. P.W, 2 Dr. D. Das, who had examined Chinu Deb, his brothers and sister, the inmates of the shop house, where the dacoity was committed, the next morning, had found injuries on their person, as were consistent with the version of the aforesaid witnesses that P.W. 1 Chinu Deb and his brothers and sister had received injuries during the occurrence that night at the hands of the dacoits. The cash box containing Rs. 500/- which was taken away by the dacoits was found in front of the verandah outside, with cash and the wrist watches taken away. The said fact was established by the evidence of P.W. 10A. Dutta the Investigating Officer that the said cash box was found by him outside the house in the morning when he reached the spot. Besides, it is evident from the statement of the I.O. that he had seized various articles which too were consistent with the evidence of the said witnesses that dacoity was committed. P.W. 8 Chandra Saikia arrested Tombi Singha and Bhim Singha on 14-2-81 and immediately after arrest he had seized one H.M.T. wrist watch from the person of Tombi Singha which was material Ext. 14 and which was one of the wrist watches dacoits had taken away. While it is true that Behari Singh who was witness to the seizure did not bear out the version of recovery as in the seizure Memo Ext. 7 and was declared hostile, we think that the statement of P.W. 8 Chandra Saikia was reliable that he had immediately after arrest of Tombi Singha on 14-2-81, recovered the wrist watch (Material Ext. 14) identified by P.W. 1 Chinu Deb as one of the wrist watches taken by the dacoits. The recovery of the said property which had been taken away during the occurrence further provides reliable support to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that dacoity had been committed. On consideration of the above evidence we are satisfied that the finding of the learned trial Court that prosecution case about the commission of the offence of dacoity was fully proved. 9. The next important question was that whether the appellants were the persons who participated in the commission of the said offence. 10. On consideration of the above evidence we are satisfied that the finding of the learned trial Court that prosecution case about the commission of the offence of dacoity was fully proved. 9. The next important question was that whether the appellants were the persons who participated in the commission of the said offence. 10. P.W. 1 Chinu Deb and his two brothers had identified appellants Tombi Singh and Bhim Singh at the test identification and they had also identified appellants Fakaruddin Laskar and Fakir Ali at the other test identification later. While there was some delay, we do not find any sufficient reason to think, that the evidence of identification suffered from any infirmity as may render it unreliable or even doubtful. The delay could be due to some delay in the apprehension of the accused and in making arrangement for test identification parade which were quite natural. We have found no material even to suggest that during the relevant period before the test identification the witnesses could have or had seen the appellants. We think that the evidence of identification was reliable and we accordingly believe the same. There was evidence that electric light was switched on immediately after the dacoits more than five in number had made forcible entry in the shop house, and that there was enough light and opportunity for the witnesses to have seen and identified the appellants. Appellant Bhim Singh in his confessional statement on 18-2-81 before P.W. 9 Sri G.K. Dutta, Judicial Magistrate confessed his guilt. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W. 9 Shri G.K. Dutta and on consideration of other circumstances held that the confessional statement, voluntary and true, was made by the accused Bhim Singh. It is true that Bhim Singh retracted his statement at the trial, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case there was enough evidence to provide satisfactory corroboration in material particulars to the confession statement, hence even though retracted we think the trial Court was justified in taking into consideration the said confessional statement. 11. However, even without it, the other prosecution evidence was enough to bring home the charge under Sec. 395, I.P.C. against the appellants. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for appellants, Fakaruddin has submitted that there was doubt about the identity of Fakaruddin for in Ext. 11. However, even without it, the other prosecution evidence was enough to bring home the charge under Sec. 395, I.P.C. against the appellants. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for appellants, Fakaruddin has submitted that there was doubt about the identity of Fakaruddin for in Ext. 2 P.W. 1 Chinu Deb had written the name as 'Fakar' and in the confession of Bhim Singh too the name given was to similar effect. We think accused Fakaruddin Laskar was also known as 'Fakar' because some of the witnesses referred to him as such, P.W. 10 A. Dutta stated on 14-3-81 he arrested Fakir Ali and Fakar Ali in the criminal case, P.W. 1 Chinu Deb also referred to the said appellant as Fakaruddin. Moreover the defence had not taken any such ground before the trial Court and the witnesses for the prosecution had also not been asked any question to even suggest doubts about the identity of Fakaruddin. We think that unless some ground has been made or established in the evidence on record it shall not be reasonable to accept the contention for the appellant that just because the name in Ext. 2 was Fakar it could not mean appellant Fakaruddin Laskar. We are, therefore, not impressed by the submission for the appellant that there was doubt about the identity of appellant Fakaruddin Laskar. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the prosecution evidence was reliable and established that the appellants had participated in the commission of dacoity, as was the prosecution case. The conviction of the appellants under Sec. 395 was therefore, correct. 13. However, we think that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life in the facts and circumstances of the case was too severe. It is true that a very serious offence of dacoity was committed and the inmates of the house had received some injuries, but the fact also was that 'Mahamuddin' was beaten up and died, the property taken away was Rs. 500/- and two wrist watches, out of which one was recovered. In our opinion the sentence of imprisonment for life being too severe requires to be modified. Appellant Tombi Singh was arrested on 14-2-81 and was released on bail on 4-4-81. Appellant Bhim Singh was arrested on 14-2-81 and was released on bail on 1-3-84. Appellants Fakaruddin and Fakir Ali were arrested on 14-3-81 and were released on bail on 1-3-84. In our opinion the sentence of imprisonment for life being too severe requires to be modified. Appellant Tombi Singh was arrested on 14-2-81 and was released on bail on 4-4-81. Appellant Bhim Singh was arrested on 14-2-81 and was released on bail on 1-3-84. Appellants Fakaruddin and Fakir Ali were arrested on 14-3-81 and were released on bail on 1-3-84. The appellants have been in jail after conviction by the trial Court on 17-7-84. In our opinion the period of detention pending trial and sentence already undergone after conviction, in the facts and circumstances of the case should be considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice in this case. For the aforesaid reasons, while we maintain the conviction under Sec. 395, I.P.C. we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone and dispose of these appeals accordingly. The appellants shall be released forthwith. Order accordingly.