Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.2.1989 passed by the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1983 whereby five accused appellants have been convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. In total eight persons were put to trial for a charge under Secs. 395/325 of the Indian Penal Code but only five accused appellants have been convicted under Sec. 395, I.P.C. and it was held that charge under Sec. 325, I.P.C. has not been proved from the side of the prosecution. 2. The story, in brief, is that P.W. 6 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh a resident of Samastipur District, had a Kamat in village Bhindua under P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan of this district. On 31.12.1978 in the morning hours at about 9 a.m. while he was at Darwaza of his Kamat house alongwith his Munshi Ram Narain Lal P.W. 3 then three persons passed them by saluting the Informant. Immediately thereafter 10 to 11 persons came from north side and surrounded the informant and they were armed with arrow and bow, pharsa and Lathi etc. The accused Appellant Ram Swaroop Rai had a pipe gun in his hand and on the threat by show of pipe gun the informant was not making any hullah and then other persons entered inside the room and took away Dari, Toshak, long Coat, some wearing apparels and the english D.B.B.L. gun belonging to the Informant. Out of the persons five accused appellants could be identified. It has further been stated in the fardbeyan lodged by P.W. 6 to the effect that soon after doing dacoity as his kamat, the accused persons had also attacked the field of P.W. 5 Bauan Rai and took away the bullocks from the field who were engaged in ploughing the field. This Bauan Rai had informed the taking away of bullocks by the accused persons to the Informant and in turn he had informed the Police. It is a peculiar case that when the First Information Report describes of two incidents being clubbed together but the Investigating Officer has stated that there was no information to him regarding taking away of bullocks of Bauan Rai which rather shows that he had not done any investigation regarding the second incident. It is a peculiar case that when the First Information Report describes of two incidents being clubbed together but the Investigating Officer has stated that there was no information to him regarding taking away of bullocks of Bauan Rai which rather shows that he had not done any investigation regarding the second incident. About the assault on the servant Babaji Rai, P.W. 4 has been examined but he did not support the prosecution case and, as such, he has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 the Mushi of the Informant has supported the evidence that he is the Munshi of P.W. 6 Informant. Regarding the taking away of cash amount of Rs. 5,000.00 there is only evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 3 that he was reported about that taking away of the cash of P.W. 6. He has no personal knowledge. P.W. 1 Ram Sagar Rai is only a hearsay witness. P.W. 5 Bauan Rai and P.W. 2 Soman Rai deposed about the taking away of bullocks in the subsequent incident, although I have already stated that subsequent incident has not been taken cognizance of by the Investigating Agency as is revealed from the evidence of the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh has identified all the five accused appellants. P.W. 3 Ram Narain Lai has also identified. Regarding identification there is no much importance in the case as it is an admitted position that the Informant had a land dispute with the accused appellants. Whether the incident had occurred even if proved attracts Sec. 395, I.P.C. or not is the question to be decided in the case. The occurrence took place in the broad day light. The appellants, who were intimately known to the Informant party came there without concealing their face either by musk or clothes. Only it is stated that Ram Swaroop Rai was armed with a Pipe Gun and others had entered into the room of the Informant. The Informant himself had also a D.B.B.L. gun in his custody. The appellants, who were intimately known to the Informant party came there without concealing their face either by musk or clothes. Only it is stated that Ram Swaroop Rai was armed with a Pipe Gun and others had entered into the room of the Informant. The Informant himself had also a D.B.B.L. gun in his custody. On close scrutiny of the evidence on record when there is no recovery of any materials and when there is every possibility of false implication because of the earlier land dispute, I find that the Informant party only to give a gravity in the nature of the occurrence put it in the form of a dacoity but the same remains at best to be a case under Sec. 379, I.P.C. Considering the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution could be able to prove their case against the accused appellants under Sec. 379, I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts. 3. In the result the appeal is partly allowed by minimising the conviction from Sec. 395, I.P.C. to that of Sec. 379, I.P.C. and it could be found on the verification of the records that the accused appellants had remained in custody for about a year after their arrest before the lower Court. The occurrence is of 1978 and the appeal is being heard after more than two decades. Considering that aspect of the matter I feel that the sentence would be appropriate if the accused appellants are allowed to let off by imposition of punishment for the period they had already undergone which I do accordingly. 4. Thus, the appeal is disposed of by minimising the penal provisions of conviction and also the sentence as mentioned above.