T. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal by Satish son of Debi Prasad and Ram Singh son of Reoti, accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-11-1980 passed by VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Section 395, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 4 years R. I. each. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :on the night between 22nd and 23/02/1979 Raja Singh, P. W. 3, was sleeping on the roof of his house while his father and brother-in-law were sleeping inside the house. At about 11. 30 p. m. , four miscreants came to his roof, upon which he got up and flashed his torch. Two of the miscreants caught him and threatened him to kill in case he would raise an alarm. One of the miscreants went down the roof with the aid of a Dhoti and opened the door of the stair-case. The three miscreants escorted him to the Angan (courtyard) and thereafter, his father and brother-in-law were also made to sit near him in the courtyard. All the four miscreants looted the house-hold goods of Raja Singh. However, in the meanwhile, the father of the complainant managed to run away and raised an alarm, which attracted Vishram Singh, Chhidda, Bhikari, Suresh, Arjun and others to the place of occurrence. A lantern was burning in the courtyard, while the witnesses, named above, had torches with them. Thereafter the dacoits ran away towards south. Further that the miscreants had earlier entered the house of the uncle of the complainant and had looted his property and thereafter they had come to his house. Cash and ornaments of the complainant were taken away by the accused. The F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by Raja Singh, complainant, on 23-2-1979 at 8. 00 a. m. at Police Station Rasulabad, which is at a distance of 9 miles from village Indauti, where the complainant lives and the dacoity was committed. A Chick report (Ext. Ka-8) was prepared at the police station by Head Constable, Chandra Kesh Singh, P. W. 8, and a case under Section 392, I. P. C. was registered. 00 a. m. at Police Station Rasulabad, which is at a distance of 9 miles from village Indauti, where the complainant lives and the dacoity was committed. A Chick report (Ext. Ka-8) was prepared at the police station by Head Constable, Chandra Kesh Singh, P. W. 8, and a case under Section 392, I. P. C. was registered. The investigations of the case were taken up by S. I. Vijay Bahadur Dubey, P. W. 7, who inspected the place of occurrence on 24-2-1979 and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-3. He examined the witnesses as also the lantern and torch of the complainant and the torches of the other witnesses. Subsequently, the case was converted into one under Sections 395/397, I. P. C. The investigations were later on taken over by S. O. Inam Chand, P. W. 9, on 10-4-1979. ( 3 ) SATISH, accused, was arrested on the night between 23rd and 24/07/1979 at 3. 15 a. m. from his house in village Anser. He was later on put to identification and was correctly identified by the complainant as well as Bhikhari, P. W. Ram Singh was arrested on 22-9-1979 at Bus-stop of village Usri and was put to identification. He was identified by the complainant, Bhikhari, Vishram Singh, Chhidda, Suresh and Lalla Singh, P. Ws. After completion of the investigations, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-6) was filed against both the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Derapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. ( 4 ) BOTH the accused-appellants were charged under Section 395, I. P. C. for having committed dacoity in the house of Raja Singh and Lalla Singh on the night between 22nd and 23/02/1979. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 5 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, viz. Constable Chunni Lal (P. W. 1), Constable Anand Kumar Sharma (P. W. 2), complainant Raja Singh (P. W. 3), Har Govind Sahai, Special Executive Magistrate (P. W. 4), who held the test-identification parade, Constable Bhikham Singh (P. W. 5), Bhikhari, an eye-witness, (P. W. 6), Sub-Inspector Vijay Bahadur Singh (P. W. 7), Head Constable Chandra Kesh Singh (P. W. 8), and Station Officer Inam Chand (P. W. 9), who partly investigated the case. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. ( 6 ) THE statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. Both of them have denied the allegations and have stated that it was a false case against them. Satish, accused, has pleaded that he was arrested on 22-7-1979 at 12 Oclock in the noon; that he used to work with one Sheo Ram, brother-in-law of Raja Singh, complainant, in village Karsa and, therefore, the complainant knew him previously. Ram Singh, accused, has pleaded that he was arrested on 20-9-1979 at 12 noon from his house; that the witnesses had known him previously because he was living in the house of the aforesaid Sheo Ram from his childhood in village Karsa and the complainant used to visit the house of the said Sheo Ram. Satish, accused, has examined Madho Singh as D. W. 1, who has stated that Satish was working with his brother, Sheo Ram, for the last 4/5 years before his arrest. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Raja Singh visited his village about 7 years ago, for the last time. He was examined in November, 1980 and from his evidence it would come out that Raja Singh visited the village of Sheo Ram sometimes in November/december, 1973. Satish was sent to jail on 25-7-1979. It is, thus, evident that Raja Singh, P. W. , had no occasion to meet Satish, accused, who, according to Madho Singh, D. W. 1, was working with Sheo Ram about 4/5 years before his arrest, meaning thereby that he was working there in the year 1975 or 1976. Thus, even if the evidence of Madho Singh, D. W. 1, is accepted as it is, Raja Singh, P. W. , had no occasion to see Satish, accused, at the house of Sheo Ram. Raja Singh has categorically stated that he did not know Satish, accused, previously. There is no material on record to corroborate the evidence of Madho Singh, and as it is, it does not go to prove the alleged relationship between Raja Singh, complainant, and Sheo Ram, aforesaid, with whom Satish, accused, was allegedly working. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Madho Singh, D. W. , and in my opinion, rightly so. There is no material on record to corroborate the evidence of Madho Singh, and as it is, it does not go to prove the alleged relationship between Raja Singh, complainant, and Sheo Ram, aforesaid, with whom Satish, accused, was allegedly working. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Madho Singh, D. W. , and in my opinion, rightly so. There is, thus, not an iota of evidence on record to support the plea taken by both the accused, which is in the nature of an excuse and an after thought. ( 7 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined two of the eye-witnesses, viz. Raja Singh, complainant, as P. W. 3, and Bhikhari as P. W. 6. Raja Singh, P. W. , has given a detailed account of the entire occurrence that took place on the night between 22nd and 23/02/1979 and all that happened thereafter. He has stated that on that fateful night he was sleeping on the roof of his house, while his father and brother-in-law were sleeping inside the house; that four miscreants came to his roof on which he woke up and flashed his torch; that one of the miscreants got down the roof into the courtyard with the aid of a Dhoti, while the remaining miscreants caught hold of him, took him down stairs and made him sit in the courtyard along with his father and brother-in-law, viz. Kripal Singh and, thereafter, they looted the property in the house. Further that his father managed to run away and raised an alarm which attracted Bhikhari, (P. W. 6) Vishram Singh, Chhidda, Arjun and Suresh, who all had torches with them; that a lantern was also burning in his courtyard. He has corroborated each and every content of the F. I. R. , Ext. Ka-1, lodged by him at the Police Station, soon after the occurrence, on the next morning. Later on, he correctly identified both Satish and Ram Singh, appellants, in the test-identification parade. On being cross-examined, he has categorically stated that he did not see any of them before the dacoity nor did he know them before. Further that both these dacoits were seen by him at the time of committing dacoity in his house and thereafter, in the test-identification parade and never in between. On being cross-examined, he has categorically stated that he did not see any of them before the dacoity nor did he know them before. Further that both these dacoits were seen by him at the time of committing dacoity in his house and thereafter, in the test-identification parade and never in between. While admitting that, the aforesaid Sheo Ram, who is his brother-in-law and who he lives in village Karsa, at a distance of about four miles he has categorically denied that he had seen Satish, accused, in the house of said Sheo Ram at any time. He also denied that Satish was brought up at the house of Sheo Ram or that he was in any manner associated with Satish, accused. The testimony of this witness has not been challenged on any other point in the cross-examination. He has categorically denied the suggestion that Satish, accused, used to visit him or that he used to visit the place of Satish. The testimony of this witness is satisfactory, cogent and convincing and has been rightly believed by the trial Court. ( 8 ) BHIKHARI, P. W. 6, is another eye-witness, who has given a detailed account of the entire occurrence that took place on that fateful night and all that happened thereafter. He has stated that on hearing the alarm, he along with others went to the place of occurrence; that Vishram Singh, Arjun, Chhidda, Suresh and others also reached there; that all of them had torches with them; that they all raised alarm and flashed their torches, in the light of which they saw four miscreants coming out of the house of Raja Singh after committing dacoity; that the house of Lalla Singh, uncle of Raja Singh, P. W. , is a part of the house of Raja Singh and is separated by a partition wall; that the dacoity was committed in both the houses on that night; that there were 10/11 miscreants in all at the house of Lalla Singh and they had seen the dacoits. He has further stated that he had gone to the jail to join the test-identification parade and correctly identified both the appellants; that he had seen both of them at the time of committing dacoity and thereafter in the jail at the time of identification; that he did not see them at any time in between the time of dacoity and the identification parade, nor did he know any of them previously. He was cross-examined quite at length. He was taken through each and every detail of the occurrence. He stood the rigour of cross-examination quite well. He was grilled for quite sometime in respect of the test-identification parade, but he categorically stated that he did not see any spot on the face of any of the participants in the identification parade. In reply to another question, he has stated that his house is just opposite the house of Raja Singh, complainant, and his uncle, Lalla Singh. He has categorically denied the suggestion that he had known the accused previously or that Satish, accused, used to serve the aforesaid Sheo Ram. This witness has not been shown to be in any manner interested in the complainant or hostile against the accused so as would come forward and make a false statement on oath. His evidence is satisfactory, cogent and convincing and is reliable. ( 9 ) FROM the evidence of both the eye-witnesses, viz. Raja Singh, complainant, P. W. 3, and Bhikhari, P. W. 6, it has been proved beyond all shadows of doubt that a dacoity was committed in the houses of Lalla Singh and Raja Singh, complainant, and four of the dacoits had looted property of Raja Singh. The fact with regard to the commission of dacoity in both these houses has, thus, been proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 10 ) AS regards the identity of the accused, there is sufficient and reliable evidence to prove that both the appellants participated in the test identification parade and were correctly identified by not only Raja Singh and Bhikhari, P. Ws. but Ram Singh, appellant, was also identified by four other eye-witnesses, who were, however, not examined. It has come in the evidence of Raja Singh and Bhikhari, P. Ws. , that there was a lantern burning in the courtyard of Raja Singh and they had also flashed their torches and had seen the dacoits in the torch light. but Ram Singh, appellant, was also identified by four other eye-witnesses, who were, however, not examined. It has come in the evidence of Raja Singh and Bhikhari, P. Ws. , that there was a lantern burning in the courtyard of Raja Singh and they had also flashed their torches and had seen the dacoits in the torch light. Raja Singh has made it clear that he saw the miscreants on his roof while three of them escorted him to the ground floor. One of them went down stairs with the aid of a Dhoti. Throughout the period the miscreants looted the property in his house, he along with his father and brother-in-law was made to sit in the courtyard and he had, thus, every occasion to clearly see the miscreants looting the property. He, thus, fully recognised and identified the miscreants. He has also mentioned the aforesaid fact in the F. I. R. , Ext. Ka-1. Subsequently, he identified the two appellants in the test-identification parade. To the same effect is the evidence of Bhikhari, P. W. , so far as the identification of the appellants is concerned. He has stated that he was standing at a distance of about 20 paces from the door of the house of Raja Singh, complainant, and at a distance of 12 paces from the door of the house of Lalla Singh and that his house is just opposite the houses of the complainant and his uncle, Lalla Singh. Thus, the presence of Bhikhari P. W. at the spot at that hour of the night is quite natural and he saw the four culprits coming out of the house of the complainant after committing dacoity in torch light. He had, thus, the occasion to see and recognise all of them as there was sufficient light for him to do so. Subsequently, he correctly identified the two appellants in the test-identification parade. As stated above, none of these two witnesses, viz. Raja Singh and Bhikhari, has been shown to be in any manner inimical against the accused so as would come forward and make false statement on oath or would implicate them in any such allegedly false case. Subsequently, he correctly identified the two appellants in the test-identification parade. As stated above, none of these two witnesses, viz. Raja Singh and Bhikhari, has been shown to be in any manner inimical against the accused so as would come forward and make false statement on oath or would implicate them in any such allegedly false case. Here it may also be pointed out that both these witnesses have categorically stated that they did not see any of the two accused in between the date of commission of dacoity and the date of their identification parade. There is nothing on record to suggest that their statements in this respect are incorrect. It has not been suggested to any of these two witnesses that any of the two accused was shown to them at any time after their arrest. No such plea was taken by any of the accused in their statements. The evidence of both these witnesses in respect of identification of the two accused-appellants has, thus, gone unchallenged and fully proves the participation of the appellants in the commission of dacoity. The trial Court has, in my opinion, rightly placed reliance on the testimony of both these two witnesses and there is no material nor any material has been high-lighted during the course of arguments that may enable me to take a different view. ( 11 ) NO other point has been urged in this appeal. ( 12 ) IN view of the foregoing, there being no merit in the present appeal the same deserves to be dismissed. At this stage it has, however, been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that both of them have been undergoing the ordeal of a very long trial lasting over a period of about 18 years. The occurrence took place in Feb. 1979. The trial concluded in Nov. 1980. The appeal was filed in Dec. 1980 and it has come up for hearing after the lapse of a period of about 17 years. The learned counsel has urged that a lenient view be taken in the matter of sentence because during all this period of about 17-18 years or so the appellants have suffered acute mental agony and pain, besides financial hardship. He has, therefore, prayed that their sentence be substantially reduced. The argument advanced by the learned counsel has considerable merit. The learned counsel has urged that a lenient view be taken in the matter of sentence because during all this period of about 17-18 years or so the appellants have suffered acute mental agony and pain, besides financial hardship. He has, therefore, prayed that their sentence be substantially reduced. The argument advanced by the learned counsel has considerable merit. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of 18 years during which the trial and later on this appeal remained pending, the appellants must have suffered acute mental agony and pain, besides financial hardship, as has been pointed out, and thus, a lenient view in the matter of sentence is called for. In my opinion, a sentence of two years R. I. would amply meet the ends of justice. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, while maintaining the conviction of both the appellants under Section 395, I. P. C. , their sentence is reduced from four years R. I. each to two years R. I. each. ( 15 ) WITH the aforesaid reduction in sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and both of them be arrested by issuing non bailable warrants by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and sent to jail to undergo the sentence awarded to them today. The period of custody during which the appellants or any one of them have/has remained during the trial or at any time thereafter shall, however, be set off under Section 428, Cr. P. C. Order accordingly. .