A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant in this criminal Appeal faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 457/380/ 411, I. P. C. in S. P. E. Case No. 14 of 1986 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magis-trate-cum-Spl. C. J. M. (C. B. I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. ( 2 ) THE criminal case was set in motion on the basis of an F. I. R. filed alleging that some known persons had stolen the idol of Lord Nursinghanath. The investigation, which Was initially conducted by Paikakamala P. S. was subsequently handed over to C. B. I, in view of the serious nature of offences. The Investigating agency was able to arrest the appellant and others and also recover the idol. ( 3 ) IN order to substantiate its case prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The learned addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C. J. M. (C. B. I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar after thread-bare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution was able to prove the offences against the appellant and accordingly held the appellant guilty for commission of offences under sections 457/380, I. P. C. and convicted him thereunder. The Court below sen-tenced him to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further R. I. for one month on each count for the offences under Sections 457/380 I. P. C. considering the sentiments of the local public. The Court below directed that both the sentences are to run concurrently. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to Mr. P. K. Padhi, learned counsel, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged crime and in fact the sole basis of conviction is the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by p. W. 3. It is also submitted that P. W. 3 was not confronted with the statement made by him under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and the Court below had arrived at a conclusion basing more upon surmises and conjectures than on the basis of the material evidence. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the C. B. I. , on the other hand, submitted that evidence of P. W. 3 vis-a-vis the statement made by him under section 164 Cr. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the C. B. I. , on the other hand, submitted that evidence of P. W. 3 vis-a-vis the statement made by him under section 164 Cr. P. C. clearly reveals that the appellant was involved with the alleged crime. According to Mr. S. K. Padhi, the order of conviction is just and proper and the same should not be interfered with. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the evidence of P. W. 3 and other materials. Fact remains that except the statement of p. W. 3 there is no other material connecting the appellant with the alleged crime. P. W. 3 had also not confronted with the earlier statements. But then the evidence of P. W. 3 and other materials inspire confidence. Though P. W. 3 has been cross-examined nothing could be elucidated from him to disbelieve his evidence. The order of conviction does not suffer from any infirmity and the reasonings are reasonable. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and confirm the same. However taking a liberal view, I reduce the substantive sentence of R. I. for one year to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 500. 00 to rs. 1500. 00 (rupees one thousand five hundred) on each count. With the aforesaid modification this criminal appeal was allowed in part. Appeal allowed partly. .