JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - These two appeals arise out of the order dated 8.7.1982 passed by Sri V. K. Agarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun convicting Sarva Sri Kale and Ram Dhiraj alias Dingding for various offences. 2. In brief, Shiv Kumar and Sewa Ram (P.W. 2) were residing in house No. 31 Darshani Gate, Dehradun. Sri Shiv Kumar was the landlord and Sri Sewa Ram was a tenant in a portion of this premises. At about 8.30 P.M. on 7-11-80 (Dipawali evening) five persons (these accused and one Narendra alias Majnu) entered the house. One person(Trilok Singh) armed with Khukhri remained standing on the main door and the remaining four started looting the inmates. They snatched chain from the neck of wife of Sewa Ram and removed the watch of Sewa Ram and they also forcibly removed the golden bangles from the hands of wife of Shiv Kumar. When this dacoity was being committed somebody telephoned at 8.50 P.M. in the Control room at P. S. Kotwali.'This information was received by S. I. Vijay Pal Singh (PW 3) who immediately telephoned at Chauki Lakhibagh to S. 1. Muzaffar Ali (PW 1) regarding this. During the commission of dacoity Km. Manglesh (Kamlesh) managed to escape from the house. Shiv Kumar was coming back to the house after doing Pooja at his shop. Km. Manglesh met him on the way and told him about the commission of the incident. He thereupon rushed to the out-post Lakhibagh in a three wheeler. S. I. Muzaffar Ali alongwith the police force and Shiv Kumar went to the spot. Some force was sent from Kotwali as well. When they reached the spot, the dacoity was being committed. Seeing the police force the accused tried to escape. Sri Trilok Singh armed with Khukhri material Ext. Ka-13 was apprehended. While trying to escape Ram Dhiraj and Narendra fired from their country made pistols on the police party but they misfired. A country made pistol Ext. I having a missed cartridge Ext. 2 in its barrel, a live cartridge Ext. 3 and one pair of golden Karas Ext. 4 were recovered from the possession of Ram Dhiraj. A country made pistol Ext. 5 having two missed cartridges Exts. 6 and 7 in its Garari and four live cartridges Exts. 8 to 11 and one golden chain Ext. 12 were recovered from the possession of Narendra. 3 and one pair of golden Karas Ext. 4 were recovered from the possession of Ram Dhiraj. A country made pistol Ext. 5 having two missed cartridges Exts. 6 and 7 in its Garari and four live cartridges Exts. 8 to 11 and one golden chain Ext. 12 were recovered from the possession of Narendra. The other two dacoits also tried to escape out of whom Kale appellant alongwith Khukhri (Ext. 13) was apprehended on the spot. The fifth person escaped and was identified as Rais Ahmad who was known to the witnesses from before. The appellants were apprehended after using lathis and received injuries. They were later on, medically examined. The recovered articles were sealed and furds were prepared separately after observing the formalities.The accused and the recovered articles were taken to the police station where Shiv Kumar lodged a written report about the incident. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted by S. 1. Swaroop Singh (P.W. 4). The necessary sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act was obtained. 3. Narendra alias Majnu had absconded during the pendency of the trial. Sri Ram Dhiraj was tried for the offences under Sections 395/397395/398, 307 and 412 LP.C. and under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act. Kale and Trilok Singh were tried for the offences under Sections 395/397, 395/398 I.P.C. and under Section 25 (4) of the Arms Act. Rais Ahmad was tried for the offence under Section 395/397 I.P.C. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined S. I. Muzaffar Ali (PW 1) and Sewa Ram (PW 2) about the incident. They also stated about the spot arrest, recovery of articles, looted properties, preparation of furds etc. and observance of other formalities like sealing in bundles. S. I. Vijay Pal Singh (P.W. 3) had received the telephone call at the Control Room. S. I. S. S. Kandiyal (PW 4) stated about the investigation made by him and obtaining of the sanction etc. It has come in evidence that Sri Shiv Kumar informant had died in December, 1980. 5. The accused denied their involvement in such dacoity. According to Ram Dhiraj appellant he was taken to the police station from his house in a jeep and was falsely implicated. According to Kale appellant he had come to his Sister's house on the Deepwali occasion. He had gone to the market to purchase some crackers etc. 5. The accused denied their involvement in such dacoity. According to Ram Dhiraj appellant he was taken to the police station from his house in a jeep and was falsely implicated. According to Kale appellant he had come to his Sister's house on the Deepwali occasion. He had gone to the market to purchase some crackers etc. He saw the police personnel beating some persons. He objected to the beating and thereupon he was caught and assaulted and implicated falsely in the case. According to Trilok Singh appellant he was taken to police station by S. I. Muzaffar Ali (PW 1) from Hanuman Chauk. According to Rais Ahmad appellant he was falsely implicated by S. 1. Muzaffar Ali on account of his brother Ahmad Raza alias Kallu. Sri Kale appellant examined his sister's husband Desh Raj (D.W. 1) to show that he had gone to the market to purchase some crackers etc. According to the prosecution case as well, the accused had received injuries at the time of the arrest. They were medically examined by Dr. R. N. 'Singh who had been examined as D.W. 2 6. After considering the evidence and material on record and facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the prosecution case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly, convicted Kale and Trilok Singh for 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C., for 10 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 398 I.P.C. and for 6 months' R.I. under Section 25 (4) of the Arms Act. Ram Dhiraj alias Dingding was also sentenced to the same for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 398 I.P.C. He was further sentenced to 5 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 412 I.P.C. and 6 months' R. I. under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act. Sri Rais Ahmad was sentenced to 10 years' R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. 7. As mentioned above, Kale and Ram Dhiraj appellants have preferred separate appeals against their conviction and sentence passed against them. Sri Rais Ahmad was sentenced to 10 years' R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. 7. As mentioned above, Kale and Ram Dhiraj appellants have preferred separate appeals against their conviction and sentence passed against them. The appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 8. The statement of Deshraj D. W. 1 is t of negative nature. The statement of Dr. R. N. Singh D. W. 2 :- also of no help to the appellants and rightly have not been referred on behalf of the appellants. 9. It has been contended by the earned counsel for these appellants that only two witnesses have been examined about the incident. Other inmates of the house or any other public witness have not been examined and this creates a doubt about the prosecution case. In my opinion this contention has no force. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of the witnesses which counts. What has to be seen is whether the statements of the witnesses inspire confidence and are sufficient to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the information about the commission of the dacoity was given by telephone to Control Room Kotwali which was again intimated to S.I.Muzaffar Ali of out-post Lakhibagh. The police personnel reached the spot by a three wheeler and by a police van. The statements of both the P.Ws. are consistent about the incident. Therefore, the fact that some more witnesses could have also been examined about the incident will be of no help to the contesting appellants. As pointed earlier, the informant had died in December, 1980. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for Kale appellant that no specific part has been assigned to him and the P.W. 2 does not speak about the specific recoveries or this appellant having a Khukhri. From the prosecution evidence it is clearly made out that out of the five dacoits one remained near the main gate, two dacoits went to the room of Shiv Kumar and two to the room of Sewa Ram (P.W. 2). The Statement of Sri Sewa Ram has been recorded after one and a half years of the incident. If he could not give minute details, this will not make his statement unreliable. The Statement of Sri Sewa Ram has been recorded after one and a half years of the incident. If he could not give minute details, this will not make his statement unreliable. He has clearly identified the appellants arrested on the spot. He has also stated about the country made pistols being fired. I do not find any infirmity in the statements of these witnesses so as to make them unreliable. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has therefore, rightly accepted their statements. 11. It may be pointed but that in fact it is not seriously disputed by Kale appellant that he was apprehended on the spot. In his cross-examination S. I. Mazaffar Ali (PW 1) has stated that Public had gathered out side the-house. He denied the suggestions that members of the public were asking the police personnel not to beat the apprehended persons (Badmash). Further, it was suggested that Kale was one of the member who had asked the police not to beat those persons. Thus according to the suggestion he was arrested out side the house when he was objecting to the beating given by the police to the arrested dacoits. However, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he changed this version to some extent and stated that the police party was beating some persons while taking them in the market and he objected to this. Thereby he tried to suggest that he was not arrested on the spot but in the market at some distance. It may be pointed out that in the cross-examination on behalf of Sri Trilok Singh (accused ) S. I. Muzaffar Ali (PW 1) stated that the crowd had gathered there.It was suggested to him that Sri Trilok Singh was also standing in the crowd, there #vas an altercation between Sri Trilok Singh and this witness and on that account he was falsely implicated. This suggestion was denied by S. I. Muzaffar All (PW 1). This suggestion also lends credibility to the prosecution case and evidence that this accused was also arrested on the spot. However, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. some twist has been given and it is stated by this accused that S. I. Mazaffar Ali met him near Hanuman Chauk, enquired about Vijay from him and when he showed ignorance, he was taken to the police station and falsely involved in the case. However, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. some twist has been given and it is stated by this accused that S. I. Mazaffar Ali met him near Hanuman Chauk, enquired about Vijay from him and when he showed ignorance, he was taken to the police station and falsely involved in the case. The Statements of these accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are inconsistent with the defence suggestion made in the cross-examination on behalf of these accused. There does not appear to be any reason why Shiv Kumar would have lodged a false F. I.R. implicating all these accused in a dacoity case and showing their arrest from his house nor there appears to be any reasons why Sewa Ram will depose falsely against them. The prosecution case has ring of truth. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are correct. 12. It was next contended on behalf of the contesting appellants that the sentence passed against them is excessive. I find that Kale and Ram Dhiraj appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. However, their conviction under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 398 I.P.C. is not tenable. Section 398 contemplates a situation where there is an attempt to commit robbery or dacoity. In the instant case it is not a case of attempt but it is a case of a completed dacoity Therefore, Section 398 I.P.C. will not be attracted and these appellants deserve to be acquitted of this offence. Kale appellant has been convicted for 10 year's R.I. The minimum sentence provided under Section 397 I.P.C. is 7 years. In my opinion, the sentence passed against him is excessive and he should have been sentenced to 7 years' R. I. in place of 10 years' R. 1. and fine. In the case of Ram Dhiraj as well a sentence of 7 years' R.I. and fine for this offence will meet the ends of justice. The sentence passed for the remaining offences appear to be proper.' 13. In view of the above discussions, the appeals of Kale appellants and Ram Dhiraj alias Dingding appellant are partly allowed. They are acquitted of the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 398 I.P.C. and their conviction under the remaining offences are confirmed. The sentence passed for the remaining offences appear to be proper.' 13. In view of the above discussions, the appeals of Kale appellants and Ram Dhiraj alias Dingding appellant are partly allowed. They are acquitted of the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 398 I.P.C. and their conviction under the remaining offences are confirmed. However, the sentence passed against them under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. is reduced to 7 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's R.I. The sentence passed against them for the remaining offences are also confirmed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to serve-out the sentence passed against them. The compliance report in this regard may be sent to this Court within 2 months from today.