Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal was preferred from jail by appellants Panchu Rai and Jai Kishun Rai who were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in sessions trial No. 187 of 1983. The appellants were tried along with four others. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons including these two appellants under Section 395, IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. The appellants have remained in custody for seven years before they were released by this Court. The remaining four accused persons had preferred criminal appeal No. 375/87. However, despite bench order criminal appeal No. 375/87 was heard by another bench who by his judgment dated 20th September, 1996 dismissed the appeal but modified the sentenced to the period already undergone by the appellants. The evidence against these appellants is similar to that of the evidence against the appellants in criminal appeal No. 375/87. 2. In the night between 15th/16th May, 1982, there was an occurrence of dacoity in the house of informant Badri Narayan Sah of village Koharba, P.S. Sonbarsa, in the district of Sitamarhi. On the same night dacoity was also committed in the house of Kheru Sah and Ramshreth Sah. The accused persons were arrested after few days on suspicion and were put on T.I. parade. They were identified by the inmates of the house in which dacoity was committed. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence against these appellants is not reliable. Appellant Panchu Rai said that he had pox mark on his face which Was prominent In the T.I. parade no person with pox mark was placed for identification among the appellants. The Magistrate who conducted the parade stated that at the time of T.I. parade no such mark was visible. The learned Judge relied on the statement of T.I. Magistrate when he could have himself within judged pox mark was visible mark. The pox mark person from childhood must have been prominent and hence the Magistrate conducted the parade should have been taken all precaution. 4. According to the evidence several witnesses have identified both the appellants. The learned Judge has accepted the evidence and I find no reason to differ with his finding particularly when conviction of the remaining appellants on similar evidence has been affirmed by this Court. 5. Both the appellants remained in custody for a considerable time. 4. According to the evidence several witnesses have identified both the appellants. The learned Judge has accepted the evidence and I find no reason to differ with his finding particularly when conviction of the remaining appellants on similar evidence has been affirmed by this Court. 5. Both the appellants remained in custody for a considerable time. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence, as above.