PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27. 7. 1977 passed by Addi. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar whereby all the appellants were convicted u/s 399 and 402, I. P. C. and sentenced to 4 years and 3 years R. I. respectively in Sessions Trial No. 20/7. 3 and 182 of 1973. Appellants Mahtab, Deo Ram and Majjan were also convicted u/s. 25 (1)A, Arms Act and sentenced to six months R. I. Aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal Majjan has reportedly died. His appeal, therefore, abates. ( 2 ) ONE Sri T. N. Gupta was Station Officer police station Sikandara who had died before the trial commenced. He received an information on 20. 3. 1971 at about 8 p. m. that some miscreants would be collecting for committing dacoity in the house of Ram Sewak of Village Alampur. Consequently he deputed. some constables to guard the house of Ram Sewak. Simultaneously, he also prepared groups to apprehend the miscreants. At 8. 30 p. m. , T. N. Gupta along with P. W. 1 S. I. Yadunath Singh, P. W. 2 Head Constable Sudama Prasad and some other constable left the police station for the spot. Public witnesses were also called out of whom P. W. 3 Nanhe and P. W. 4 Pyare Lal have been examined during trial. When the entire party reached Behari Tiniha, it was divided into three groups, one was in charge of the said T. N. Gupta, the other was headed by Yadunath Singh and the third was led by Sudama Prasad. They took positions in the adjoining fields. However, before doing so enter-se searched was taken. At about 11 P. M. 9 or 10 decoits arrived at the Chabutara, their talks are audible. One of whom said that why the informer was not reached. Another said he had already shown the house of Ram Sewak and there were enough arms to complete the dacoity. As soon as the dacoits party got up T. N. Gupta by flashing his torch towards the dacoits and challenged them and the three parties surrounded all the dacoits but some of them escaped. The scuffle has taken place in which P. W. 3 Mahesh Singh constable and another constable Aman Ahmad received injuries. As soon as the dacoits party got up T. N. Gupta by flashing his torch towards the dacoits and challenged them and the three parties surrounded all the dacoits but some of them escaped. The scuffle has taken place in which P. W. 3 Mahesh Singh constable and another constable Aman Ahmad received injuries. They were medically examined at the Hospital and true copies of their injury reports have been filed as Ext. Ka 7 and Ka 8. Since the arrest of the dacoits took place. They were searched and from Deo Ram a country made pistol and 8 live cartridges and a torch were recovered. From Mahtab a country made pistol and 7 cartridges were recovered. From Majjan a country made pistol and 7 live cartridges were recovered. From Gangu one Dharia was recovered. Afarsa was recovered from Ram Kishore. From Munshi Lal a country made pistol and six: live cartridges were recovered. All the articles were sealed where after the arrested persons and the recovered articles were brought to the police station and the case registered. R. N. Gautam S. I. investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet. ( 3 ) BEREFT of the details, suffice it to say that the prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case. P. W. 1 Yadunath Singh, P. W. 2 Sudama Prasad and P. W. 3 Mahesh are police personals who were in the first and second of the party. P. W. 4 Nanhe Lal and P. W. 5 Kallu were witnesses of the public who were also in the first and second party. All these witnesses have narrated the case as to how they cam up to the shop of Ram Narain Katiar where from the party were divided into three groups had fully explained the places where they have concealed themselves. So that the dacoits should be apprehended. They have deposed consistently about the manner in which the dacoits came and started talking details t of committing dacoity at the house of Ram Sewak From the conversation noted above and a the arrest at the spot of the appellants it is more apparent that they have concealed their identity in order to commit dacoity where making preparation for the same. ( 4 ) SRI G. P. Dixit learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution case is doubtful inasmuch as there was no reason for the accused not to get sent in the presence of the police and the whole story appears to be concocted. Sri. A. K. Dwivedi learned A. G. A. however, argued on behalf of the state that in case the injury sustained by the two police personnels which were duly proved are enough guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution story. ( 5 ) IT is true that in such cases there is likelihood of false implication. In the instant case, however, I find that the Station Officer had deputed constables to go to the house of Ram Sewak independently, having prepared himself for arresting the miscreants alongwith other police and public men. Not only this, the manner of the incident hardly gave opportunity to the dacoits to resort to firing or gave opportunity to all of them to flee. That is reason three or four persons could not be apprehended and only appellant had been arrested on the spot. The injuries sustained by P. W. Mahesh and accompanying constable Aman Ahmad extend sufficient justification for holding that the instant case does not appear to be one of the Stereo type matters but is a truthful one. ( 6 ) IT may be remembered that no improbability or enmity or contradiction has come in the testimony of the two public witnesses P. W. 4 Nanhe and P. W. 5 Pyare Lal. Nothing has been illicited in the cross-examination to discredit their testimony. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the prosecution case stood proved and the Sessions Judge rightly convicted he appellants on the aforesaid three counts. ( 8 ) AS regards the question of sentence, earned counsel for the appellants pointed out that he incident is of 2 1. 3. 1971 and 20 years have elapsed. The learned counsel for the appellant however, pointed that the appellants had already been in jail during trial. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants be lot sent to jail again. The learned counsel for state very rightly said that this appeal has taken long time. This is a contributory factor for giving opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellants to argue this point so vehemently. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants be lot sent to jail again. The learned counsel for state very rightly said that this appeal has taken long time. This is a contributory factor for giving opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellants to argue this point so vehemently. It is true that the Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants on 8. 8. 1977 but the appeal remained pending in this Court for 14 good years. From the record, it appears that all the appellants had been jail for nearly six weeks. Under the special circumstances noted above and agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not a case in which the appellants should be asked to undergo the remaining sentence and, therefore, the period undergone should be deemed to re-sufficient sentence for the offence u/ss 399/402, I. P. C. and 25 (1) A of the Arms Act ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeals are partly allowed. While the conviction of the appellants Mahtab, Gangu and Ram Kishore in Cr1. Appeal No. 1694/77 and 1695/77 are upheld but their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bounds are discharged. ( 10 ) THE appeal of Majjan abates. Appeal partly allowed. .