GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal Appeal Noa06 of 1989 (Kaluwa, alias, Kaluram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh), which arises out of the same Judgment. It appears that 8 appellants involved in Cr. Appeal No406/89 were convicted for offence u/s 395 I. P. C. and sentenced to 4 years R. I. by Judgment dated 20-1-1989 passed by Addi. Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 23/88. In addition, appellants Kaluram, Naresh and Mandhari were also found guilty under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R. I. All the 8 convicts have preferred their appeal from Jail, which is subject matter of Cr. Appeal Noa06 of 1989. Appellant Narayan Singh has also preferred this appeal through his Advocate. That is the reason why both the appeals are being heard and decided by this Judgment. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION alleges that in the night between 21st and 22nd September, 1987, Harkesh (P. W. 1), Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2) and other members of the family were sleeping in their house. In the night, his wife shouted that some thieves had entered into the house. They, therefore, entered into the room and locked themselves from within. The miscreants, however, broke open the door of the house, entered into the same and thereafter attempted breaking over the door where Harkesh and others had locked themselves in. Harkesh opened the door out of fear. His hands as also the hands of his son Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2) were thereafter tied. They were beaten. The ladies were locked inside a room. Thereafter, the miscreants demanded Rs. 25,000/- cash and 5 Kg. gold and since Harkesh and Vinod were unable to give the same, they were very badly beaten. The lades were taken out of the room and asked about the ornaments. A search was, therefore, made and lot of gold and silver ornaments were taken away. According to Harkesh (P. W. 1), 4 persons had entered into the house. Shivprasad had seen other two behind the house of Harkesh, keeping a watch. The report of the incident was lodged and thereafter all appellants apprehended. Lot of stolen property was also recovered on the basis of their statements. Harkesh and Vinod were medically examined and reports about injuries sustained by them are Ex. P/29 and Ex. P/30. Shivprasad had seen other two behind the house of Harkesh, keeping a watch. The report of the incident was lodged and thereafter all appellants apprehended. Lot of stolen property was also recovered on the basis of their statements. Harkesh and Vinod were medically examined and reports about injuries sustained by them are Ex. P/29 and Ex. P/30. Appellant Ramlal gave his memorandum (Ex. P/9) and discovered 1 Payal and 1 sword, which were seized as per Ex. P/22. Appellant Kaluwa, alias, Kaluram gave his memorandum, as per Ex. P/1o and discovered 1 Payal, which was seized vide Ex. P/20. Narayan Singh similarly discovered one pair of silver Chhanni, which was seized as per Ex. P/21. Appellant Mandhari discovered one Mangalsutra and a gun, which were seized from him vide Ex. P/18. Appellant Pimmu discovered one pair of Payal and 5 Bichhiyas, which were seized vide Ex. P/19. Premlal discovered one ladies H. M. T. watch, which was seized vide Ex. P/15. Appellant Zaheer discovered one pair of silver Chuda which was seized vide Ex. P/17 and appellant N aresh Prasad discovered 1 pair of Payal, 1 watch, 1 silver ring, 2 gold Mohars, 1 gold ring, I gold J humki, which were seized vide Ex. P/25. These properties were properly identified in the identification parade. Appellants were also put on test identification parade on 9. 1. 1988. Harkesh identified appellant Kalluram and Narayan Singh, who were also identified by Vinod Kumar. Shivprasad identified Premlal and Mandhari. Thereafter, the appellants were put on trial as aforesaid. The learned trial Judge, relying on the evidence of Harkesh. (P. W. 1) Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2), Shivprasad (P. W. 11) and also the evidence of identification, held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) QUESTION requiring consideration is, Twhether the evidence on record justifies the aforesaid conviction and sentence? Evidence of, Harkesh, who had also lodged the report (Ex. P/1), is that he was in his house. On hearing a gun fire, his wife Rajjibai and daughter Nibbibai started shouting. They were, therefore, brought together in a room upstairs and all of them locked themselves in. 4 persons, however, entered into the house and wanted to open the door; 2 of them were armed with guns. Harkesh being afraid, opened the door. On hearing a gun fire, his wife Rajjibai and daughter Nibbibai started shouting. They were, therefore, brought together in a room upstairs and all of them locked themselves in. 4 persons, however, entered into the house and wanted to open the door; 2 of them were armed with guns. Harkesh being afraid, opened the door. Both he and his son Vinod were tied and Rajjibai and Nibbibai locked into a room. Harkesh was given beating and asked to give money. Vinod Kumar was also similarly beaten. They searched the house and ultimately took away lot of gold and silver ornaments. This version finds support from the report (Ex. P/i) also. Statement of Dr. D. KJain (P. W. 6), who had medically examined Harkesh and found several injuries on his person provides further con-oboration. Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2) also provides the said corroboration. Under the circumstances, there is overwhelming evidence on record to establish that 4 persons had entered into the house of Harkesh, beaten him and looted his gold, silver ornaments and other properties. The memoranda given by the appellants and recovery made in terms thereof further indicate that properties were found from the possession of the appellants. In such a situation, the only question requiring consideration is whether the appellants were properly identified? ( 4 ) EX. P/4 is the identification memo from which, it appears that appellants Kaluram, Ramla1, Narayan Singh and Pimmu were put in test identification parade along with 12 others. Harkesh had identified Kaluram and Narayan Singh. Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2) had identified Kaluram and Narayan Singh and not others. It would, therefore, indicate that Kaluram and Narayan Singh were identified by Harkesh (P. W. 1) and Vinod Kumar (P. W. 2 ). Second part of this identification memo would indicate that Shivprasad (P. W. 11) had identified appellants Mandhari and Premlal. According to Shivprasad , they were the persons standing behind the house of Harkesh. B. N. Mishra (P. W. 15) has proved this identification. There is nothing in the cross-examination of that witness from which its correctness could be doubted. Under the circumstances, appellants Kaluram, Narayan Singh, Premlal and Mandhari must be held to have been properly identified by the witnesses. There is, therefore, nothing to doubt the involvement of these appellants. For this reason, there is no substance in their appeal. There is nothing in the cross-examination of that witness from which its correctness could be doubted. Under the circumstances, appellants Kaluram, Narayan Singh, Premlal and Mandhari must be held to have been properly identified by the witnesses. There is, therefore, nothing to doubt the involvement of these appellants. For this reason, there is no substance in their appeal. This will require consideration of memorandum and seizure from appellants. Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/15 are the memoranda given by the appellants in the presence of witnesses. On the basis of these memoranda, seizures as per Ex. P/16 to Ex. P/22 have been made. Phulchand and Suresh are common witnesses to these documents, of which only Suresh has been examined. Suresh (P. W. 3) has proved the fact that the appellants gave their statements, which were recorded in his presence and on the said basis, the recovery was made. He was subjected to long cross-examination and yet remained firm. There appears to be nothing to doubt thecorrectness of the same. Though, it was suggested to him that nothing was recovered in his presence, he denied the suggestion and asserted that he had witnessed the seizure. The seized property was thereafter identified on 8-2-1988. Both Harkesh and Vinod Kumar haveidentified the property as belonging to them. Dulichand (P. W. 4) is the person, who had made some of those ornaments and had identified them. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was a goldsmith by profession and had been doing so since long. According to him, he had made some of those ornaments about two years before. He denied the suggestion that the ornaments were shown to him before identification. There is, therefore, good deal of evidence to indicate that the property recovered from the possession of the appellants was the stolen property. This would, therefore, indicate that the conviction of the appellants is fully supported by evidence on record. It is, therefore, affirmed. As regards sentence, the appellants were sentenced to 4 yearst R. I. . They had been in jail from the date of their arrest on 16. 12. 1987 indicating that they have been in jail for about 3 years and 9 months. During this period, they must have earned some commission. This Court is, therefore, inclined to believe that they have already undergone their sentence and must have been released. In such a situation. 12. 1987 indicating that they have been in jail for about 3 years and 9 months. During this period, they must have earned some commission. This Court is, therefore, inclined to believe that they have already undergone their sentence and must have been released. In such a situation. there is no justification for interfering with the jail sentence. In spite of it, it would be in the interest of justice to direct their release forthwith, in case, they have not been released so far, provided they are not requited in connection with some other offence. Ordered accordingly. .