JUDGMENT S.N. JHA, J.:- There are nine appellants in all in this batch of three appeals. All of them have been convicted under Sections 396, 307/34, 366, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 396, rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307/34, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 366 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 201. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 120-B. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as follows. On 29.7.96 at about 11 PM Ram Prasad Sah of Village Adhlar within Jamalpur PS of Darbhanga district, the informant of the case, was sleeping in his house. A boat came near his house and some one called him by name 'Sahji'. He saw 15 persons-all armed with rifle, gun, pistol getting down from the boat. They surrounded him as well as Kishori Sah, Binod Sah, Dhanik Lal Sah and made them sit in a circle. While 5-6 persons remained there keeping guard, the rest started looting articles which continued upto 3 AM. This happened in the houses of Ram Prasad Sah, Mangan Sah, Binod Sah, Kishori Sah and Dhanik Lal Sah. It is not necessary to refer to the details of• the articles looted by them for disposal of these appeals. Six-seven miscreants had concealed their face by towel. Some of the appellants were identified and their names were disclosed in the fard beyan itself. One of them, Kari Paswan, assaulted the informant and Mangan Sah with the butt of gun, Joti Paswan shot at Kishori Sah which hit his thigh. After committing dacoity, they left the place with the looted articles in two boats including one belonging to the informant. While leaving they also took away Maheshwar Sah and a girl, Anita Devi. Apart from those Whose names were mentioned in the fard beyan, description of the miscreants was given by the informant. 3. The incident was narrated by Ram Prasad Sah to the Officer Incharge, Jamalpur PS, SI Sakaldeo Choudhary on the next day i.e. 29.7.96 at 11 AM. Mangan Sah who was taken to Biraul Primary Health Centre for treatment also narrated the incident to S.I. Rajdeo Singh of Biraul PS precisely at the same time i.e. on 29.7.96 at 11 AM, giving identical description of the occurrence as Ram Prasad Sah. Mangan Sah who was taken to Biraul Primary Health Centre for treatment also narrated the incident to S.I. Rajdeo Singh of Biraul PS precisely at the same time i.e. on 29.7.96 at 11 AM, giving identical description of the occurrence as Ram Prasad Sah. In fact, a submission was made on behalf of the appellants that in view of the striking similarity between the two statements made at different places at the same time it is doubtful if they were in fact made and recorded at the stated time. In other words, it was submitted that the statements were ante dated and ante timed, made with full knowledge of the other one. This submission however has to be rejected out of hand, for if the occurrence is reported by two persons at different places at the same time giving an identical account of the occurrence, it is only indicative of the truthfulness of the statement. If I may so, had the statement of Ram Prasad Sah and Mangan Sah been different from each other, the appellants would have argued that the report was not truthful and the occurrence was doubtful. 4. Be that as it may, the statement made by Ram Prasad Sah was treated as fardbeyan in the case presumably because the same had been recorded by the officer Incharge of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. The statement described as fardbeyan of Mangan Sah was simply forwarded by SI Rajdeo Singh of Biraul PS to the Officer incharge of Jamalpur PS for necessary action. As no submission was made on behalf of the appellants for treating the statement of Ram Prasad Sah as the fardbeyan, and not the one made by Mangan Sah, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect further. 5. After recording the fardbeyan of Ram Prasad Sah (hereinafter called the informant) on 29.7.96 at 11 AM SI Sakaldeo Choudhary recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the places of occurrence and took steps for recovery of Maheshwar Sah and Anita Devi besides the looted articles, and apprehension of the accused. The dead body of Maheshwar Sah was found on 31.7.96 at Village Kamalpur from a field submerged by water plants. A day earlier on 30.7.96 Anita Devi was recovered. The dead body of Maheshwar Sah was found on 31.7.96 at Village Kamalpur from a field submerged by water plants. A day earlier on 30.7.96 Anita Devi was recovered. There is a small dispute about the place from where recovery of Anita Devi was made and I shall deal with this aspect at the appropriate place in this judgment. Meanwhile the dead body of Maheshwar Sah was sent for postmortem after inquest by the Investigating Officer. In course of investigation some of the looted articles were also recovered and identified by the members of the victims' family at the TI Parade. After completing the investigation, observing the necessary formalities the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and four others who could not be apprehended. 6. At the trial which followed the prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove its case. Out of them, the material witnesses on the point of occurrence are PW 1 Mangan Sah, PW 2 Binod Sah, PW 3 Dhanik Lal Sah PW 4 Ravindra Sah, PW 5 Anita Devi, PW 8 Kishori Sah and PW 10 Ram Prasad Sah, the informant of the case. Amongst them, PWs 1, 3, 4 and 8 had suffered injuries in the occurrence. Other witnesses on facts are PW 6 Mantun Thakur in whose house Anita had taken shelter to conceal herself from where she was taken away, PW 7 Agru Das @ Agru Khatwea hearsay witness who stated about commission of dacoity in the fateful night and PW 9 Gajendra Sah who stated that dacoity was committed in his house. He is son of PW 3. PW 16 Madan Prasad Sah was examined as formal witness on the point of seizure of the looted articles and inquest. The official witnesses are PW 11 Radhey Krishan, a Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of Anita Devi under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, PW 12 SI Upendra Kumar Rajbanshi - a Police Officer attached with Biraul PS who had recovered Anita Devi, PW 13 Dr. The official witnesses are PW 11 Radhey Krishan, a Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of Anita Devi under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, PW 12 SI Upendra Kumar Rajbanshi - a Police Officer attached with Biraul PS who had recovered Anita Devi, PW 13 Dr. Akhauri Ravindra Kishore who had held autopsy on the dead body of Maheshwar Sah, PW 14 Dr Ram Narayn Jha of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital who had treated PW 1 Mangan Sah and PW 8 Kishori Sah after they were shifted from Biraul Primary Health Centre, PW 15 Brij Mohan Prasad Joshi, Block Development Officer, Barsoi, who had conducted the test identification parade in respect of the looted/recovered articles, PW 17 Dr Bashir Ahmad of Primary Health Centre, Biraul who had initially examined the injuries of PW 1 Mangan Sah and PW 8 Kishori Sah at the Health Centre, and PW 18 SI Sakaldeo Choudhary of Jamalpur PS who had investigated the case. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence nor they appear to have pleaded any specific defence except the bald plea of innocence and false implication. At the end of trial, the appellant were convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated above giving rise to these appeals. 7. Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that there are two types of evidence in this case one consonant with the fardbeyan version and the other being the improved version of the occurrence as per which five-six dacoits initially came but after they faced resistance and one of them was assaulted by Maheshwar Sah they retreated from the place and returned after some time with reinforcement i.e. more persons and then committed dacoity in course of which they assaulted the inmates, fired shots at Maheshwar Sah and finally took away Maheshwar Sah and Anita Devi. In any view, Counsel submitted, there being positive evidence to suggest that Maheshwar Sah was alive when he was taken away it cannot be said to be a case of dacoity with murder so as to attract the mischief of Section 396 of the Penal Code inasmuch as in order to constitute the said offence, murder must be committed while committing dacoity. Counsel also submitted that though the appellants were also charged with the offence under Section 302/34 they were acquitted of that charge and therefore the question of the appellants being guilty of the offence of murder with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code does not arise. Similarly, it was pointed out, charge had been framed also under Section 364/34 of the Penal Code but no conviction was awarded thereunder. As the judgment is silent on the point, the appellants would be deemed to have been acquitted of the charge and therefore in the absence of any appeal by the State they cannot be convicted for committing that offence either. Regarding appellants' conviction under Section 366 with respect to abduction of Anita Devi, it was submitted that she was recovered from her Sasural on the next day. In any view, there is discrepancy regarding the place of recovery. While according to PW 12 Upendra Kumar Rajbanshi, she was recovered from Palwa Chaur (Palwa is sasural village of Anita Devi); according to Anita Devi hereself, besides other witnesses, she was recovered from village Sugraul a far away place in Saharsa district. So far as the offence under Section 307/34 is concerned, the appellants have served more or less seven years incarceration which should be treated as sufficient in the event the appellants are found guilty of the charge and they should be left off with sentence already undergone. 8. Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad appearing for the State submitted that Maheshwar Sah was shot at twice in course of the dacoity and having regard to the nature of fire arm injuries found by the doctor the case would fall within the mischief of Section 396 of the Penal Code. In any view, the offence under Section 396 being combination of the offences of murder and dacoity, even if it is held that murder of Maheshwar Sah was not committed while committing dacoity, the appellants can be convicted under Section 302/34, or if that too is not permissible in view of the acquittal against which there is no appeal by the State, they may still be convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code. Further, according to the Counsel, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 366 or Section 120-B of the Penal Code does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Further, according to the Counsel, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 366 or Section 120-B of the Penal Code does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. After considering the submissions of the Counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the appellants' conviction under Section 396 of the Penal Code cannot be maintained. The offence of dacoity with murder under Section 396 is made out where murder is committed while committing dacoity. In the instant case there is preponderance of evidence to suggest that Maheshwar Sah was alive when he was taken away by the miscreants at the end of the occurrence. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful if he was at all shot at by the miscreants in course of the occurrence. 10. As indicated above there are two types of ocular evidence in this case - one consonant with the fardbeyan version and the other an improved version. Evidence of PW 1 Mangan Sah, PW 2 Binod Sah, PW.8 Kishori Sah and PW 10 Ram Prasad Sah comes in the first category while the evidence of PW 3 Dahnik Lal Sah, PW 4 Ravindra Sah and PW 5 Anita Devi comes in the second category. Neither PW 1 nor PW 2 or PW 8 or PW 10 in their evidence stated about Maheshwar being shot at by the miscreants. All of them stated about 'abduction' of Maheshwar Sah. Indeed, the earliest version both of PW 1 Mangan Sah and PW 10 Ram Prasad Sah - stated about Maheshwar being abducted. There is no whisper therein about Maheshwar being shot at in course of the occurrence. As a matter of fact, even PWs 3, 4 and 5 who introduced the story of Maheshwar assaulting one of the miscreants, Kari Paswan, by lathi, and would have us believe that it was because of that assault that he was later shot at twice by Kari Paswan, stated at more than one place about Maheshwar being abducted and his being alive at that time. Surely, if I may say so, only a person who is alive may be abducted and not a dead one. Surely, if I may say so, only a person who is alive may be abducted and not a dead one. In fairness to the appellants, it may be stated that even in this category of witnesses, PW 4 Ravindra Sah did not say about Maheshwar first assaulting Kari Paswan, though he did state about his being shot at by him. PWs 3 and 5 did not disclose the name• of the assailant. It may be mentioned here that all the material witnesses are closely related with each other having houses adjacent to each other. PW 1 is cousin of PW 10. PW 2 is uncle of PW 10 and brother of PWs 3 and 8. PW 3 is father of PWs 4, 5 and 9. Indeed, PWs 2, 3, 8 and 10 and others were made to sit at the same place. The omission to state about assault of Kari Paswan by Maheshwar and his being later shot at by Kari Paswan not only in the 'fardbeyan' of Ram Prasad Sah or the statement of Mangan Sah, recorded at the same time, but also in the evidence in Court of PWs 1, 2, 8 and 10 in my opinion creates a grave doubt about Maheshwar being shot at the time of occurrence. Besides, the evidence of those who said so i.e. PWs 3, 4 and 5 is also discrepant, as indicated above. 11. Reference to the ante mortem injuries found by PW 13 in the post mortem strengthens the doubt. The injuries were as under:- Two 1/4" diameter round, with lacerated inverted and charred margin penetrating wound side by side in right 6th and 7th inter costal space 4" away from the middle line. The track was found going inwards downwards and towards left. (Wound of entry) 1" diameter two lacerated wound with everted margins on the left lumber region (wound of exit) On opening, the chest and abdominal cavities were found filled with blood and blood clots. Right lung, liver, stomach and left kidney found punctured by the bullet. Both the entry and exit wounds were found connected with a trac. The soft tissues were found disorganised around the trac. Right lung, liver, stomach and left kidney found punctured by the bullet. Both the entry and exit wounds were found connected with a trac. The soft tissues were found disorganised around the trac. From the medical evidence it firstly appears that the bullets after entering into the chest and abdominal cavities had punctured all the vital organs like lung, liver, stomach and kidney and there was no chance of Maheshwar remaining alive and conscious. But even PWs 3, 4 and 5 stated that he was 'abducted'. As observed above, abduction is of a person alive and not who is dead. As a matter of fact, PW 5 Anita Devi who remained with Maheshwar till parts of his body were cut on the boat clearly stated in her evidence that when Maheshwar was brought to the boat he was alive. 12. It is significant to mention that none of the three witnesses i.e. PWs 3, 4 and 5 in their statement before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated about Maheshwar being shot in course of the occurrence. Their attention was drawn to their previous statements and corroboration was taken from the Investigation Officer in course of his evidence. In the circumstances, I am inclined to think that the story that Maheshwar first assaulted Kari Paswan with a lathi and thereafter he was tied with a pole and twice shot at while dacoity was being committed, is an embellishment in the prosecution case which cannot be accepted. The statement of PW 5 Anita Devi before the Magistrate, PW 11 Radhey Krishna, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. rather suggests that both she and Maheshwar had tried to hide themselves beneath a cot in the house of PW 6 Mantun Thakur from where they were caught and then brought to the boat and taken away. 13. The prosecution case about Maheshwar being shot at the place of occurrence in course of commission of dacoity further becomes doubtful as the IO did not find any blood at the place nor the pole with which Maheshwar was allegedly tied was shown to him. 14. It is relevant to mention that as per the evidence of Anita the abdomen of Maheshwar was torn open by the miscreants, the intestines taken out, eyes gouged out, eyelashes scraped, nose and heels cut before the dead body was thrown in the pyne. 14. It is relevant to mention that as per the evidence of Anita the abdomen of Maheshwar was torn open by the miscreants, the intestines taken out, eyes gouged out, eyelashes scraped, nose and heels cut before the dead body was thrown in the pyne. All this happened in her presence and before her eyes. Though these injuries do not find mention in the postmortem Report, perhaps, because the doctor confined himself to the description of only antemortem injuries, the finding of the Investigating Officer in the inquest report corroborates the evidence of Anita Devi. Such cutting of parts of body usually is indicative of revengeful killing an expression of hatred or intense dislike for the deceased. As the prosecution would have us believe, Maheshwar was killed because he dared to assault one of the miscreants, Kari Paswan by lathi. If it was so, he should have been finished then and there as the miscreants were armed with lethal weapons. There was no reason why he would be taken away whether in injured condition or not and then parts of the body would be cut. It appears to me that murder of Maheshwar Sah was for some other reason which has not been disclosed by the prosecution. . 15. In the above premises, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that murder of Maheshwar Sah was committed in course of committing dacoity and therefore conviction of the appellants under Section 396 of the Penal Code cannot be maintained. 16. It is true that even where charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code fails it is permissible to hold the accused guilty of the offence of murder for the individual act committed by him in an appropriate case where charge to that effect has been framed and evidence led at the trial (see the case of Kanhaiya Nonia VS. State of Bihar, 1986 PLJR 492, and Shyam Bihari Vs. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 320 ), in the instant case, no such conviction under Section 302 simpliciter is possible in the absence of any charge against the concerned accused. The charge in fact was under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code of which they have been acquitted. State of Bihar, 1986 PLJR 492, and Shyam Bihari Vs. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 320 ), in the instant case, no such conviction under Section 302 simpliciter is possible in the absence of any charge against the concerned accused. The charge in fact was under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code of which they have been acquitted. There being no appeal against acquittal by the State this Court cannot go into the validity of acquittal or record conviction of the appellants for the said charge. 17. But while it is not possible to convict the appellants under Section 302 or Section 302/34 I find no difficulty in altering the conviction from Section 396 to Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence envisaged in Section 396 has been held to be not proved because murder was not committed while committing dacoity. However, there is enough evidence to prove the factum of dacoity. Almost all material witnesses on the point of occurrence namely, P.Ws. 1 to 10 stated that dacoity was committed in the houses of Ram Prasad Sah, Mangan Sah, Binod Sah, Kishori Sah and Dhanik Lal Sah. Out of them at least two, namely, P.W. 1 Mangan Sah and P.W. 8 Kishori Sah received injuries for which they had to be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital after initial treatment at Biraul Primary Health Centre. There is also enough evidence on the point of identification. While the appellants of Cr. Appeal Nos. 325 and 343 of 2000 are co-villagers and as such there could be no difficulty in identifying them in course of the occurrence which continued for three hours, the names of the remaining appellants were gathered from appellant Jiwach Paswan. In the occurrence house effects were removed and taken away on a boat belonging to the informant. Some of the articles were identified at the T.I. Parade by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Block Development Officer, namely, P.W. 15 Braj Mohan Prasad Joshi, who conducted the T.I. Parade pledged his oath to prove the factum of identification of the articles at the T.I. Parade by the witnesses. The Trial Court has made elaborate reference to the evidence of the witnesses on the point of presence and identification of the appellants as well as identification of the stolen articles in the judgment. The Trial Court has made elaborate reference to the evidence of the witnesses on the point of presence and identification of the appellants as well as identification of the stolen articles in the judgment. Having gone through the evidence placed before us, we have no manner of doubt that the appellants committed dacoity in the houses of Ram Prasad Sah and others, for which they were liable to be convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellants under Section 396 would accordingly stand altered to Section 395 of the Penal Code. 18. There is also enough evidence on the point of abduction of Maheshwar Sah. It has been held above that Maheshwar Sah was alive at the time of being taken away by the miscreants. In fact I have disbelieved the prosecution case about his being shot by the miscreants at the time of occurrence. His dead body was later found in a nearby village two days after on 31.7.96. There is positive direct evidence coming from the mouth of -P.W. 5 Anita Devi about the manner in which parts of his body were cut and disposed of in the chour. Under Section 364 of the Penal Code whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be in danger of the murder makes himself liable for punishment which may be imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years, and also fine. The appellants in the facts of the case are clearly liable for having committed that offence. In Sattan Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (2) PLJR 107 it has been held by this Court that where the accused are charged with both the offences under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and acquitted of the former charge, it can not be said that they can not be convicted under Section 364 under any circumstance. The crucial test is whether the accused intended at the time of kidnapping or abduction to commit the murder of the victim or so dispose of as to put him in danger of being murdered. 19. The crucial test is whether the accused intended at the time of kidnapping or abduction to commit the murder of the victim or so dispose of as to put him in danger of being murdered. 19. Unfortunately, while considering charge under Section 364/34 the Trial Court took the view that as the case of murder with dacoity under Section 396 has been proved against accused persons, it is not necessary to consider the charge under Section 364 of the Penal Code. This clearly was the consequence of the finding that murder of Maheshwar Sah was committed while committing dacoity and therefore the charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code was proved. However, as held above, the prosecution has failed to prove that murder of Maheshwar Sah was committed while committing dacoity and thus the offence under Section 396 has been held to be not made out. Question arises as to whether the appellants can be convicted under Section 364 of the Penal Code. No finding one way or the other has been recorded on merit on this point by the Trial Court unlike charges under Section 302/34 or Section 365 or Section 412 of the Penal Code with respect to which the Court has recorded specific finding that they are attracted. The question, in my opinion must be answered in the affirmative as there is no bar in law to record any finding on merit for the ends of justice. 20. In the case of Ramdeo Rai Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 1990(2) SCC 675 , the accused was charged for offences under Section 396 as well as 302 Indian Penal Code for causing death of the deceased while attempting to commit dacoity. The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 396 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. No finding was recorded with respect to charge under Section 302. On appeal, the High Court took the view that as there was no actual commission of dacoity there could be no conviction under Section 396, but in view of specific allegation in the charge against one of them namely Ramdeo Rai Yadav of committing murder of the deceased which stood proved, altered his conviction to Section 302 of the Penal Code maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment and acquitted other accused. In appeal before the Supreme Court it was submitted that alteration of conviction into one under Section 302 IPC from Section 396 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of an appeal against acquittal under Section 302 IPC by the State. The argument was held to be without any merit. The relevant observations may be extracted as under:- ‘Now we have to consider whether the alteration of the conviction under Section 302 IPC from Section 396 IPC can be sustained or not. Before the Trial Court, the appellant along with others took• his trial under Section 396 IPC in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. According to the prosecution, there was no actual commission of dacoity though there was an attempt for it. The High Court considering the above facts and the evidence proving that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased has altered the conviction. Added to that, the High Court has mentioned in paragraph 20 of its judgment that there was a specific allegation in the charge that the appellant had murdered the deceased. In our opinion, the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the alteration of the conviction in view of the specific alternative charge. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that there was an acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC has no merit." 21. Thus there is difference between a finding of acquittal and absence of any finding regarding particular charge. Where the accused is acquitted of the particular charge, in absence of appeal by the State, he cannot be convicted for that offence but where no finding is recorded one way or other, the appellate Court can record appropriate finding if the accused has been charged with the particular-offence and evidence has been led to prove the charge. The accused in such a case cannot complain of any prejudice. In the instant case, a specific charge was framed under Section 364/34 of the Penal Code. The Court failed to record a wrong notion but that cannot be regarded as acquittal which could stand against conviction for the offence. The appellants faced trial with full- awareness that they were also charged with the offence under Section 364/34 IPC and therefore no prejudice is likely to be caused to them if they are convicted under Section 364/34 IPC. 22. The appellants faced trial with full- awareness that they were also charged with the offence under Section 364/34 IPC and therefore no prejudice is likely to be caused to them if they are convicted under Section 364/34 IPC. 22. Apart from the appellants conviction under Section 396 of the Penal Code which stands altered to Section 395, they have been convicted under Sections 307, 366, 201 and 120-B of the Penal Code. These convictions, in my opinion, do not warrant any interference or modification. As per the prosecution case the miscreants assaulted four inmates of the house, two of them, namely, P.W.1 Mangan Sah and P.W.8 Kishori Sah received serious injuries for which they were treated by P.W. 17 Dr. Basir Ahmad at Biraul P.H.C. and by P.W.14 Dr. Ram Narayan Jha later at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital who found (i) lacerated wound 3.1/4" in size on right side of buttock near the natal cleft and (ii) lacerated wound 1/4" in size on right upper thigh of Kishori Sah and (i) stitched wound on left side of scalp 2.1/3" in length and (ii) stitched wound on left fore arm 1" in length on Mangan Sah. The findings of. P.W. 17 were more or less to the same effect. The evidence is consistent on the point that the injuries were inflicted on the victims in course of occurrence by the miscreants including the appellants. The conviction under Section 307/34 therefore does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. 23. As regards conviction under Section 366, as indicated above, the submission of the counsel for the appellants was that the victim i.e. Anita Devi was recovered from her Sasural village and therefore it cannot be said that she was kidnapped muchless for forced sexual intercourse and hence, the offence is not proved. In fact, it was submitted, there is discrepancy in the prosecution evidence about the place of recovery. Whereas according to the victim herself she was recovered from Palwa Chour (Palwa is her sasural village) according to P.W.12, S.I. Upendra Kumar Rajbanshi who had conducted the boat in village Sugraul in Saharsa District. 24. I have perused the evidence of the witnesses on the point and have come to the conclusion that there is no such discrepancy in the evidence as to create any doubt about the prosecution case. 24. I have perused the evidence of the witnesses on the point and have come to the conclusion that there is no such discrepancy in the evidence as to create any doubt about the prosecution case. Anita Devi stated in her evidence that she along with the looted articles was taken to Sugraul-sasural of accused Kari Paswan. The dacoits got down from the boat there and went to the in laws' house of Kari Paswan. The wife of Kari Paswan took her inside and gave her clothing from amongst the looted ones. On the next day, fearing arrival of the Police she was taken to another place on a boat. After the Police arrived there they fled away leaving her on the boat. Before fleeing away they fired at the Police. Similar is the evidence of P.W.12 who stated about encounter between the miscreants and the Police party for which Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 36/96 was registered. Anita's version that she was taken to another place on a boat, it appears to me, clarifies the doubt regarding the place of recovery. It may be recalled that occurrence took place in the night of 28/29.7.96. After committing dacoity for three hours the dacoits left with the looted articles, and the two victims Maheshwar Sah and Anita Devi. Anita was taken to Sugraul. They apparently reached there in the early hours of 29.7.96. On the next day i.e.30.7.96 fearing Police action they tried to move to another, safer, place. On the way encounter took place and they fled away. As seen above, Anita was found alone on the boat when she was recovered. Though there is no clear evidence on the point it appears that Sugraul and Palwa and the P.O. village Adhalar are connected by river and persons commute between these places by boat. The fact that the dacoits reached Sugraul by boat suggests connectivity between Adhalar and Sugraul. Palwa is undisputedly at a short distance from Adhalar connected by river. P.W. 12 in his evidence also stated that he reached Palwa from Adhalar on a boat. It appears to me that the boat by which Anita was being shifted on the next day reached Palwa in course of journey but the fact that the place was Palwa was not known to Anita Devi and that is why in her statement she stated about Sugraul as the place of recovery. It appears to me that the boat by which Anita was being shifted on the next day reached Palwa in course of journey but the fact that the place was Palwa was not known to Anita Devi and that is why in her statement she stated about Sugraul as the place of recovery. While it may be easier to identify the 'village by signs on the road, it may not be so easy to identify the place (s) when travelling on a boat. 25. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence on the point of abduction of Anita Devi. It should be kept in mind that the abduction of a young woman (Anita was married only 5-6 months ago) casts some kind of social stigma and therefore, it is 'not expected of the family members to make a false allegation touching upon the reputation of the woman and her conjugal life. Section 366 IPC which is a specie of the offence of kidnapping/abduction provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be forced, inter alia, to illicit intercourse would be liable for committing the offence. The object of kidnapping Anita Devi, in the circumstances, could be nothing else than to force her to sexual intercourse. In fact, Anita appears to have spent entire day and night of 29.7.96 at Sugraul before being shifted on 30.7.96 when she was recovered. In the circumstances, I have no manner of doubt that the offence under Section 366 IPC too is made out and the conviction of the appellants therefore does not warrant any interference. 26. The appellants' conviction under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC similarly does not warrant any interference. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the occurrence was the result of criminal conspiracy. Firstly, a small group of miscreants reached the place of occurrence. On resistance they retreated only to return after a shortwhile with re-enforcements and committed the crime. In the circumstances, the offence of criminal conspiracy is well made out and the conviction does not warrant any interference. Firstly, a small group of miscreants reached the place of occurrence. On resistance they retreated only to return after a shortwhile with re-enforcements and committed the crime. In the circumstances, the offence of criminal conspiracy is well made out and the conviction does not warrant any interference. Likewise, the offence under Section 201 IPC too is well proved as after committing the murder of Maheshwar and cutting parts of his body, the miscreants dumped the body in the pyne at Village Kamalpur and covered it with water plants in order to conceal the evidence and screen themselves from legal punishment-where it was found by the Investigating Officer on 31.7.96. 27. Counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have remained in jail for more or less seven years. In fact, except Bhikho Paswan who was allowed bail by this Court recently in August, 2003 others are in custody since sometime after the occurrence. The period of incarceration suffered by them should be treated as sufficient and they should be let off with sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone. Having regard to the manner in which after committing dacoity in five houses, the miscreants forcibly took away two inmates including a teenaged girl and killed the other, in my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentences to period undergone. The plea of the counsel is accordingly rejected. 28. For the reasons stated above, the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to one under Section 395 of the Penal Code. However, the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded under Section 396 in the facts of the case is maintained. They are also convicted under Section 364/34 of the Penal Code for which too they are sentenced to imprisonment for life. The conviction under Sections 307/34, 366, 120-B & 201 IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder except Section 120-B (under which no separate sentence has been awarded) are affirmed. 29. In the result, subject to the modification in the conviction indicated above, the appeals are dismissed. Except appellant Bhikho Paswan other appellants are in jail, they will serve the sentence. The conviction under Sections 307/34, 366, 120-B & 201 IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder except Section 120-B (under which no separate sentence has been awarded) are affirmed. 29. In the result, subject to the modification in the conviction indicated above, the appeals are dismissed. Except appellant Bhikho Paswan other appellants are in jail, they will serve the sentence. The bail bonds of Bhikho Paswan are cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Trial Court to serve remainder of sentence within one month, failing which the Trial Court will take coercive steps to apprehend him. I agree.