Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. Both the appeals arised out of one and the same order and judgment dated 30-5-1998 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1995 convicting all the three accused-appellants under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that in the night of 7-1 -1994 while the informant (P.W. 12) was sleeping in his house with his family members, at about 11.30 p.m. he heard noise of several persons and awoke. The noise was coming from his courtyard. The informant tried to open his door, but the door was closed from outside. The dacoits threatened him to open the door and out of fear he opened the room. The dacoits entered inside and assaulted him and the family members and committed dacoity and removed cash, ornaments, etc. valued more than Rs. 3,100.00 . It is further case of the prosecution that the informant identified among the dacoits Ram Murti Paswan and Surendra Paswan in the light of lantern (they are not the appellants). The informant also claimed to identify other accused-persons. The dacoits had also entered inside the room of the uncle of the informant and took away cash Rs. 27,000.00 and ornaments. He also identified Ram Murti Paswan and Kamal Chaoudhary among the dacoits. The dacoits while committing dacoity in the room of Mahendra Paswan, took away valuables but he identified only Ram Murti Paswan among them. On the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 12), the case was registered at the place of occurrence where the police has arrived. The police dog was requisitioned and some recovery was made immediately after the occurrence and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against six accused-persons, who faced trial under Secs. 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were not convicted under Sec. 412 of the I.P.C. and acquitted accordingly. Out of six accused who were facing trial three were acquitted for want of reliable evidence and only three accused-appellants have been convicted, 3. In order to prove the charge the prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were not convicted under Sec. 412 of the I.P.C. and acquitted accordingly. Out of six accused who were facing trial three were acquitted for want of reliable evidence and only three accused-appellants have been convicted, 3. In order to prove the charge the prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. P.W. 1 (Tetari Devi), P.W. 2 (Baban Mahto), P.W. 3 (Mahendra Singh), P.W. 4 (Indu Devi), P.W. 5 (Baby Devi) and P.W. 6 (Sumitra Devi) are family members of the informant and they supported the factum of dacoity and stated that they have identified accused Jai Kishun Paswan, Kishun Paswan, Kamal Chaudhary and Ram Murti Paswan who are co-villagers amount the dacoits. P.W. 3 also claimed to have identified Ram Murti Paswan among the dacoits. P.W. 3 claimed to have identified Kishuni Paswan, Jai Kishun Paswan and Kamal Chaudhary among the dacoits. P.W. 5 identified the above-named accused-persons besides Surendra Paswan and Ram Murti Paswan. P.Ws. 7 and 8 have been tendered for cross-examination, P.W. 8 (Veena Devi) claimed to have identified Kishuni Paswan and Jai Kishun Paswan in the dock. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 are seizure-list witnesses but they turned hostile as they did not support the factum of recovery in their presence. 4. P.W. 12 (Upendra Paswan) is the informant of this case. He fully supported the prosecution case and all the particular including the factum of dacoity which took place in the mid-night on 7-1-1994. He stated that beside from his room, the dacoit also took away valuables including cash and ornaments from the room of his uncle and father. He claimed to identify Ram Murti Paswan and Surendra Paswan. He further stated that his father, uncle and brothers named the accused whom they identified at the time of dacoity. 5. P.W. 13 (Shailendra Kumar Singh) is the Judicial Officer, who held the T.I.P. and has proved the T.I.P. chart (Ext. 2). According to him, in his presence, witness Mahendra identified accused Ram Singh Paswan who was standing at the door with a hansua in his hand. This witness also identified accused Baleshwar Paswan who was watching near the window. P.W. 14 (Raj Kumar) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He took up investigation on 8-1-1994 and inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant at village-Rahimpur. This witness also identified accused Baleshwar Paswan who was watching near the window. P.W. 14 (Raj Kumar) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He took up investigation on 8-1-1994 and inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant at village-Rahimpur. He found a pair of Hawai Chappal, one Sendhkatni and one cotton Chadar. He also found article scattered in the room and Angan. He has proved the seizure list of the recovered articles left by the dacoits at the place of occurrence (Exts. 1/C and 1/E). On the basis of the evidence mentioned above, the trial Court convicted these appellants as mentioned above and acquitted three other accused. 6. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that since the appellants have remained in jail custody for about five years, therefore, without going into the merit of the appeals his prayer is that the period of sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. Appellants Kishun Paswan and Jai Kishun Paswan (of Cr. Appeal No. 250 of 1998) are in jail custody since 14-1-1994 and appellant Surendra Paswan (of Cr. Appeal No. 292 of 1998) is in jail custody since 27-12-1995. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that appellant Surendra Paswan is a young man and in the judgment of the trial Court his age is mentioned as 28 years only. There is nothing on record to show that he has any criminal history. 8. Considering all these facts and the fact that the appellants have been in jail custody for about five years, their period of sentence of 7 years R.I. is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 9. With this modification in the order and judgment of the trial Court, both the appeals fails and dismissed. Issue release orders.