Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated, 16.7.1993 passed by Shri B.K. Sinha, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal no. 59/91, thereby and thereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction as recorded by Shri S.P. Sinha, Asstt. Sessions Judge, Saraikela in S.T. No. 335 of 1989 was confirmed and maintained. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this revision is that according to prosecution on 22.7.1987 at about 9.30 p.m. the informant along with his son, PW 1 was sitting outside the door of his house situates in village Sobhapur, P.S. Rajnagar and at that time a lantern was also burning outside the house. It has also been alleged that three persons including these two petitioners and one Sk. Israil entered in the compound of the house and when they were challenged by the informant then a person fired from his pistol which did not hit any body and then the informant Md. Siddique flashed his torch and he identified that Abdul Hai was holding a pistol whereas one Sk. Israil was holding a lathi. Immediately, after that informant and his family members entered in the house and bolted the door from inside but the accused persons tried to break open the door but they were unsuccessful. In the meantime the informant raised alarm then the accused persons escaped away. Then, it was detected that just outside the gate an empty cartridge was found and it is also alleged that in the year, 1985. the murder of the son of the informant namely, Rafique was committed and these petitioners and others were facing trial in that session case and so it was alleged that only out of enmity the accused persons named in the FIR came for the purpose of killing. The informant on that very night at 11.30 p.m. had gone to Rajnagar P.S. and lodged the FIR so a case was instituted as against these two petitioners and one Sk. Israil. 3. The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet as against these petitioners and Sk. Israil was shown as absconder. The informant on that very night at 11.30 p.m. had gone to Rajnagar P.S. and lodged the FIR so a case was instituted as against these two petitioners and one Sk. Israil. 3. The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet as against these petitioners and Sk. Israil was shown as absconder. These two petitioners claimed themselves innocent in the trial court but the trial court found them guilty under Section 452 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for four years whereas Abdul Hai was further found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and he was further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years, and it was also ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently. However trial court acquitted the petitioners so far as the charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the order of conviction the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal no. 59/91, which too was dismissed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa and then this revision had been preferred. 4. On perusal of the judgment of both the courts and the record it can be said that PWs 1, 5, and 7 who arc the son of the informant, informant and his wife who were present in the house are the witnesses on the point of occurrence and they had consistently supported the prosecution case that these petitioners along with one another who is now absconding entered in the compound wall and one of the petitioner Abdul Hai who was holding pistol fired due to previous enmity because these petitioners and others were facing trial as accused regarding the murder of the son of the informant. It is also their evidence that empty cartridge was also found near the gate of the house. So the occurrence as alleged has been duly proved and there is concurrent finding of both the courts as against the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case no offence under Section 452 of the IPC, is made out because there is no evidence on the record that petitioners entered in the dwelling house. The trial court and the appellate court considered this aspect and also there is evidence to show that these petitioners entered in the compound of the house and also tried to.open the door forcibly. So the allegation of trespass is also well proved. The trial court and the appellate court considered this aspect and also there is evidence to show that these petitioners entered in the compound of the house and also tried to.open the door forcibly. So the allegation of trespass is also well proved. It was also contended that identification appears to be doubtful as alleged lantern and the torch which are the means of identification according to prosecution case had not been produced before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has also not been examined in the trial court which definitely caused prejudiced to the defence case. 5. The appellate court has rightly held that non-production of the lantern or the torch is not at all fatal in the facts and circumstances. Moreover, no serious contradiction has come in the evidence of the witnesses and the P.O. is also not challenged so non-examination of Investigating Officer has not caused prejudice to the evidence. 6. So, on careful consideration of the entire evidence on the record there is no two opinion that both the courts were justified in convicting both the petitioners under Section 452 of the IPC, and further petitioner, Abdul Hai is also guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act. So the sentence of two years imposed by the appellate court appears to be excessive. In that view of the matter, the sentence under Section 452 of the IPC. as against both the petitioners is hereby reduced to only one year RI and similarly Abdul Hai is further sentenced to undergo RI for one year also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and both the sentences will run concurrently. 7. With this modification in sentence this revision is hereby dismissed and bail bonds of both the petitioners are hereby can-celled and they are directed to surrender before the trial court i.e., before Shri S.P. Sinha. Asstt. Sessions Judge, Saraikela for undergoing remaining part of the imprisonment. Revision dismissed with modification of sentence.