Judgment L.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that at about quarter to 8.00 p.m., the Informant, Brajballabh Mishra was just lying down on a Chauki in front of his door after taking his meal, suddenly some persons came and started shouting to kill him. The Informant somehow managed to stand up and by that time, he was given danda blow. He saw that about 14-15 dacoits entered in his house and enquired from his wife and daughter about the gun and cartridges. The daughter of the Informant replied that the gun and cartridges were with his father. It has been further alleged that one of the dacoits assaulted her with fists and slaps. They took away three boxes from the western room and one from the northern room containing articles of the house. They also took away a twelve bore double-barrel gun of the Informant bearing No. 74161 manufactured by the Indian Ordnance Factory. Thereafter, they also committed dacoity in the house of one Shyamdeo Singh which was situated adjacent to the house of the Informant. It has been alleged that from the house of Shyamdeo Singh the dacoits took away various articles. Thereafter, they went away shouting Jai Bajrangbali Ki Jai. Fardbeyan of the Informant after the occurrence was recorded next morning at about 9.00 a.m. by the Police. The Police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Thereafter, on the basis of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as stated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity in this case. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether five witnesses including the I.O. (PW 5). PW 1 is the Informant himself. PW 2 is Sona Devi, PW 3 is Suchita Devi, PW 4 is Shyamdeo Singh, Judicial Magistrate who had conducted T. I. Parade, PW 4 is Investigating Officer. 4. PW 1, the Informant has categorically stated that the dacoits came in his house, assaulted him by danda and took away the valuable articles. He has also stated about the commission of dacoity in the house of one Shyamdeo Singh who is his neighbour. 4. PW 1, the Informant has categorically stated that the dacoits came in his house, assaulted him by danda and took away the valuable articles. He has also stated about the commission of dacoity in the house of one Shyamdeo Singh who is his neighbour. He has stated that he could not identify any of the dacoits in course of dacoity. PW 2 Sona Devi, wife of Shyamdeo, the neighbour of the Informant in whose house also, dacoity was committed in the same night has also stated that in the night of dacoity, she was in the house and on hearing hulla from the house of the Informant, she closed her doors. She has further stated that three accused persons scaled over the chhapper of her house and entered in his angan and then opened the exit door. She has further stated that about 60 to 70 persons entered her house. She has stated that she and her daughter, however, managed to go out of her house in spite of mild protest by the dacoits. She has claimed to have identified the dacoits in the torch light flashed by them. She has also admitted that she identified the appellant in T. I. Parade. PW 3 is the daughter of PW 2. She has also fully supported the version as narrated by her mother PW 2. She has also stated that at about 7 or 8 p.m. in the night after hearing hulla from the house of the Informant in the night, she and her mother closed the door of their house but some dacoits scaled over the chhapper of the house and came in the courtyard. Thereafter, they opened the main door. Thereafter, she and her mother themselves went in two separate rooms and closed the door. But, because of the insistence of the dacoits, they opened the door and came in the courtyard. She has also stated about the torch-light was flashed by the dacoits and there was a lantern which was put off later by the dacoits. She has stated that she identified the appellant in the T. I. Parade. PW 4 is the Judicial Magistrate who held the T. I. Parade. She has also stated about the torch-light was flashed by the dacoits and there was a lantern which was put off later by the dacoits. She has stated that she identified the appellant in the T. I. Parade. PW 4 is the Judicial Magistrate who held the T. I. Parade. He has stated that after observing all rules of T. I. Parade, he conducted it and put the accused with similar-looking ten persons on T. I. Parade and that the accused was identified during the T. I. Parade by PWs 1 and 3. PW 5,I. O. has also stated that he reached at the place of occurrence on the basis of the information that dacoity has been committed in the house of the informant and one Shyamdeo Singh. He has fully described the place of occurrence and the house of these two persons. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and the identification of the appellant has not been established since the means of identification was not produced in the Court which was seized by the I.O. So far as the story of enmity is concerned, nothing has been placed on the record to show that there was enmity between the Informant and the appellant. Only there was a suggestion put forth by the defence regarding this fact. The defence did not choose to examine Gandhi Jee who was so called samdhi of PW 3 to prove that there was enmity between the father of the appellant and the said Gandhi Jee. The lantern which was burning in the room was not produced in the Court but PWs 2 and 3 have also stated that dacoits were flashing their torches in which as well they saw the face of the dacoits. As such, the identification of this appellant cannot be disbelieved because of non-production of lantern which was one of the means of identification. PW 4 who conducted the T. I. Parade has also corroborated the facts regarding identification made by these witnesses. He has stated that he conducted the T.I. Parade after following all the rules and formalities as required, and PWs 2 and 3 identified the appellant. 6. Therefore, after careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and also the evidence on record. He has stated that he conducted the T.I. Parade after following all the rules and formalities as required, and PWs 2 and 3 identified the appellant. 6. Therefore, after careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and also the evidence on record. I find that the Court below has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. 7. Now coming to the question of sentence learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence took place about 20 years ago and since then the appellant has been mentally and physically harassed, therefore, it requires consideration on the point of sentence. Having regard to the submission raised on behalf of the appellant. I find that it would be expedient in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case that the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment and it is ordered accordingly. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.