Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 25.06.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Bali (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 109/2002 (04/2002), whereby the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences under Sections 460, 459, IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 460, IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 459, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, both the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the Parcha Bayan of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar, Exhibit D-1, a crime report No. 182 dated 211.2001 was registered by SHO., Police Station, Nana. During investigation, Appellant No. 1 Deeta was arrested vide Exhibit P-17 and appellant No. 2 Lala vide Exhibit P-18 on 012.2001. Appellant No. 1 Deeta furnished informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-19 on 012.2001, vide Exhibit P-21 on 012.2001 and vide Exhibit P-23 on 012.2001. Appellant No. 2 Lala furnished informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-20 on 012.2001, vide Exhibit P-22 on 012.2001 and vide Exhibit P-24 on 012.2001. At the instance of Appellant No. 1 Deeta and Appellant No. 2 Lala, silver jewellery were recovered vide Exhibit P-10 and Exhibit P-9 respectively. The silver jewellery of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar were put to identification test. PW. 19 Shri K.C. Mishra, Judicial Officer, Desuri held the identification test of the jewellery recovered vide Exhibit P-27. PW. 1 Badal Kanwar rightly identified the jewellery belonging to her alleged to have been stolen by both the appellants. At the instance of appellant Deeta a Lathi and at the instance of appellant Lala a Sothi (a wooden article meant for washing clothes) were recovered. Injured PW. 1 Badal Kanwar was medically examined vide injury report Exhibit P-15. PW. 1 Badal Kanwar rightly identified the jewellery belonging to her alleged to have been stolen by both the appellants. At the instance of appellant Deeta a Lathi and at the instance of appellant Lala a Sothi (a wooden article meant for washing clothes) were recovered. Injured PW. 1 Badal Kanwar was medically examined vide injury report Exhibit P-15. Amiya, a minor girl of 14 years of age, was assaulted at the hands of the appellants and she succumbed to the injuries; her autopsy was conducted vide Exhibit P-28 by PW. 20 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma. Both the appellants were put to identification test vide Exhibits P-25 and Exhibit P-26 respectively. PW. 1 Badal Kanwar failed to identify the appellants, however, PW. 10 Rabebai correctly identified them. After usual investigation, police filed challan against the appellants for the offences under Sections 459 and 460, IPC. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing as many as 20 witnesses and documents Exhibit P-1 to P-38 and Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-8. The appellants made statements under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegations. 3. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against both the appellants for the offences under Sections 459 and 460, IPC and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned as also the record of the trial Court. I have scrutinized, scanned and evaluated the evidence on record. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that presence of PW. 10 Rabebai at the place of occurrence is doubtful. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants when PW. 1 Badal Kanwar after having suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants went to call PW. 10 Rabebai, by the time, it is alleged that the appellants were climbing the staircase and, therefore, in the night it was not possible for either PW-1 Badal Kanwar or PW-10 Rebedai to identify the appellants and therefore, the test identification parade of the appellants is not free from doubt. 10 Rabebai, by the time, it is alleged that the appellants were climbing the staircase and, therefore, in the night it was not possible for either PW-1 Badal Kanwar or PW-10 Rebedai to identify the appellants and therefore, the test identification parade of the appellants is not free from doubt. Learned Counsel further contended that there is no evidence as to who caused injuries to deceased Amiya and, therefore, , the offence under Section 460, IPC in absence of direct evidence cannot be said to have been proved. Learned Counsel further contended that there is some contradiction in the statements of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar and PW. 10 Rabebai both eye-witnesses, and, therefore, their evidence create doubt. Learned Counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of jewellery as there is contradiction in the statements of PW. 11 Kuldeep Singh and PW. 14 Jabarsingh. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is excessive. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned Judgment and order and contended that the prosecution has proved by connecting every chain of evidence the case against both the appellants. The appellants were identified by two eye-witnesses PW. 1 Badal Kanwar and PW. 10 Rabebai on the spot. In the test identification parade also both the appellants were identified by PW. 10 Rabebai correctly. The silver jewellery were recovered at the instance of both the appellants which were correctly identified by its owner PW. 1 Badal Kanwar in the presence of Judicial Magistrate PW. 19 Shri K.C. Mishra. The recovery of Lathi and Sothi from both the appellants, injury report of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar and post mortem report of deceased Amiya corroborate the prosecution case. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. 8. PW. 1 Badal Kanwar stated that in the night at about 3.00 AM she heard noise of opening of door, she asked who they are, on which she was threatened to keep mum else she would be murdered and thereafter both the persons started breaking the locks of the house. One Amiya, a minor girl of 14 years was sleeping in a room, her mother PW. 10 Rabebai was sleeping outside in Dhaliya (Kaccha room). One person inflicted Sothi injury on her head, she started bleeding. One Amiya, a minor girl of 14 years was sleeping in a room, her mother PW. 10 Rabebai was sleeping outside in Dhaliya (Kaccha room). One person inflicted Sothi injury on her head, she started bleeding. She raised cry and went to call mother of Amiya. When mother of Amiya came, Amiya was also assaulted by them. On raising cries, Kesarsingh and Himataji Kalal also came. Appellant Deeta was identified by her in the Court and stated that he inflicted head injury to her. Appellant Lala was also identified by her. She further stated that thereafter the appellants climbed over ladder and fled away. She was taken to the hospital at Pindwada and thereafter to Sirohi and Amiya was taken to Sirohi hospital and thereafter to Udaipur hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries suffered. She stated that on checking of the house, it was noticed that silver jewellery (Silver Chade and Jod) and a sum of Rs. 4,000/-were found to be stolen by the accused. She categorically stated that when both the appellants entered in her house, a bulb was on in the Gallery, therefore, she had identified the accused appellants. This witness was put to lengthy cross-examination, however, in cross-examination also her statement remained consistent to that of in examination-in-chief and reiterated that on the relevant date, it was moon light and bulb was also on. She categorically stated that the locks of two rooms were broken by the appellants. She further stated that she went to call mother of Amiya PW. 10 Rabebai when the accused entered the house. She categorically stated that she closed the door of the house before going to sleep. However, she stated that she did not see the appellants causing injuries to Amiya and stated that her mother PW. 10 Rabebai might have seen. She further stated that PW. 10 Rabebai mother of Amiya was two poundas (paces) ahead of her when she entered in the house. She further stated that when she came back from the house of Amiya, the accused appellants were climbing over the staircase (ladder) and they did not make any effort to caught hold the accused-appellants as they had climbed the staircase (ladder). She stated that the appellants were seen and identified by her in the light and disclosed the colour of the garments which the appellants were wearing at the relevant time. She stated that the appellants were seen and identified by her in the light and disclosed the colour of the garments which the appellants were wearing at the relevant time. She has proved the identification test of jewellery belonging to her in the presence of Judicial Magistrate, PW. 19 K.C. Mishra. She also stated that she suffered injuries on the head and eye vide Exhibit P-15. .9. The other eye-witness PW. 10 Rabebai, mother of deceased Amiya stated that she was sleeping in Dhaliya outside her house, her daughter was sleeping with PW. 1 Badal Kanwar because son of Badal Kanwar went to attend the marriage in his in-laws family. Both her daughter and Badal Kanwar were sleeping in Gallery and lights were on. In the night Badal Kanwar came to her and informed that thieves entered the house, Badal Kanwar had a head injury and bleeding. She went running to the house of Badal Kanwar and noticed that there are persons in the house. She found two persons both the accused appellants in the house. The appellants were identified by the witness in the Court. She stated that appellants Lala and Deeta were the persons who caused injuries to Badal Kanwar and her daughter Amiya. When she went inside the house, appellant Lala informed appellant Deeta that persons have awaken and, therefore, to run away. When Amiya tried to get up, appellant Deeta gave a Sothi blow on her head and Amiya became unconscious. Two persons Bhopalsingh and Kesarsingh came running. Appellants Lala and Deeta had a Lathi and Sothi with them. Thereafter, both the appellants ran away. Injured Badal Kanwar and Amiya were taken to Pindwara Hospital and Sirohi Hospital and thereafter injured Amiya was taken to Udaipur hospital where she succumbed to the injures. This witness was also put to lengthy cross-examination, but her testimony remained unshaken. She categorically denied .that the appellants were shown to her by the police. She categorically stated that she had seen both the appellants at the time of committing the crime and, therefore, she has rightly identified them in test identification as also in the Court. She categorically stated that she had seen both the appellants climbing the staircase (ladder) which was 15-20 paundas (paces) away from her in the light as the bulbs were on. 10. PW. She categorically stated that she had seen both the appellants climbing the staircase (ladder) which was 15-20 paundas (paces) away from her in the light as the bulbs were on. 10. PW. 2 Bhanwar Singh in the witness to recovery of Lathi and Sothi as also the witness to site map and site inspection note. He has proved the site map and site inspection note Exhibit P-1 and stated that at the place of occurrence, there was a Cot and some blood on the ground. He has also stated that both the accused appellants got recovered Lathi and Sothi (meant for washing cloths of Gujarati Bawaliya). The Lathi recovered was having blood stains. He has proved Exhibit P-2, Exhibit P-3, Exhibit P-4 and Exhibit P-5. He categorically stated that at the time of recovery, both the appellants were going ahead in the police custody and got the Lathi and Sothi recovered as also Lathi and Sothi both were having blood stains. 11. PW. 3 Fateh Singh is the witness to site map Exhibit P-1. PW. 4 Kesar Singh and PW. 5 Bhopal Singh are the persons who reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence and stated that Kuldeeps mother Badal Kanwar PW. 1 was having a head injury and bleeding. There was blood on the ground in the house. The lights were on. Amiya was lying on a Cot having injury on the head, her mother PW. 10 was sitting by her side and weeping. PW. 1 Badal Kanwar mother of Kuldeep informed that thieves came and caused injuries and broke the locks of the rooms and thereafter fled away. Injured Badal Kanwar and Amiya were taken to Pindwara hospital and thereafter to Sirohi hospital. Injured Amiya was subsequently taken to Udaipur Hospital where she died. Similar is the statement of PW. 6 Kesaram who is neighbour of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar and reached on the spot after the occurrence on hearing the cries thief-thief . By that time, PW. 4 Kesar Singh and PW. 5 Bhopal Singh had already reached the spot. He had also made a similar statement to that of Bhopal Singh and Kesar Singh. So is the statement of PW. 7 Himmataram, who is also a neighour of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar. PW. 11 Kuldeep Singh is son of PW. By that time, PW. 4 Kesar Singh and PW. 5 Bhopal Singh had already reached the spot. He had also made a similar statement to that of Bhopal Singh and Kesar Singh. So is the statement of PW. 7 Himmataram, who is also a neighour of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar. PW. 11 Kuldeep Singh is son of PW. 1 Badal Kanwar, who on receiving telephonic information of the occurrence came to the house. The occurrence narrated by his mother is corroborative evidence. PW. 12 Sadulsingh is also a witness to recovery memo Exhibits P-2. P-3, P-4, and P-5. He has also made similar statement to that of PW. 2 Bhanwar Singh. PW. 13 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Arora who at the relevant time was Junior Specialist at Pindwara Hospital, medically examined the injured Badal Kanwar and proved the injuries suffered by her vide Exhibit P-15. He stated that there was a lacerated wound 4x25 cm. on the skull and defuse swelling in 7 cm. area on both the eyelids and forehead. PW. 14 Jabarsingh is the witness to the various recoveries. PW. 15 Ravindra Pratap Singh who was SHO Police Station Nana at the relevant time had proved the investigation, arrest memo, recoveries, site map, site inspection note, information furnished by the accused appellants, the recoveries effected in pursuance thereof . PW. 19 K.C. Mishra who at the relevant time was Judicial Magistrate, Desuri conducted test identification parade and proved the test identification parade vide Exhibits P-25 and P-26 respectively. He stated that Rabebai has correctly identified both the appellants. However, PW. 1 Badal Kanwar failed to identify the appellants in identification parade, but identified them in Court. He has also proved Exhibit P-36 by which the jewellery belonging to PW. 1 Badal Kanwar recovered at the instance of appellants were identified. PW. 20 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma conducted the autopsy of deceased Amiya and stated that Amiya suffered two injures, injury No. 1 was on the head, on opening the skull, he noticed 10x10 cm. clotted blood and 7 cm. fracture. According to him, the cause of death of deceased Amiya was due to head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved post mortem report Exhibit P-2. .12. clotted blood and 7 cm. fracture. According to him, the cause of death of deceased Amiya was due to head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved post mortem report Exhibit P-2. .12. Thus, on close scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution noticed above, it has been fully established that on the relevant date of occurrence, it were the appellants who committed lurking house trespass by house breaking and caused injuries to PW . 1 Badal Kanwar and deceased Amiya. The injuries suffered by deceased Amiya were grievous in nature as there was a fracture of skull, thus, caused death of deceased Amiya by causing grievous hurt. So far as identification is concerned, the presence of PW . 10 Rabebai soon after the occurrence has been established beyond reasonable doubt at the place of occurrence by the statement of PW . 1 Badal Kanwar and PW . 4 Kesar Singh, PW . 5 Bhopal Singh and PW . 7 Himmata Ram and, therefore, it cannot be said that PW. 10 Rabebai could not have identified the accused-appellants. The statement of PW . 1 Badal .Kanwar and PW . 10 Rabebai further find corroboration by the statement of PW . 4 Kesar Singh and PW . 5 Bhopal Singh who are neighbours and reached at the place of occurrence soon after hearing the cries. Deceased Amiya was found seriously injured and PW . 10 Rabebai has proved that it were the appellants who caused head injury and other injuries to deceased. The appellants were put to test identification and have rightly been identified by PW . 10 Rabebai. There is no infirmity in the test identification parade. The recoveries of jewellery, information furnished by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW . 19 Shri K.C. Mishra Judicial Magistrate has proved the test identification of the appellants as also the jewellery. 13. Thus, from the evidence discussed herein above, the prosecution has proved the case by leading unimpeachable evidence that it were the appellants who committed lurking house trespass by house breaking in night, caused grievous hurt and death as also stolen the jewellery. In my view, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 460 and 459, IPC. In my view, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 460 and 459, IPC. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 14. So far as quantum of sentence passed by the trial Court against both the appellants for the offence under Sections 459 and 460, IPC is concerned, the offence under Section 459, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The offences under Section 460, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the appellants have been facing trial and appeal since 2001, in my view, sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 460, IPC would meet the ends of justice. 16. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction is dismissed. However, while maintaining the conviction for the offences under Sections 459 and 460, IPC, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 460, IPC is reduced to seven years and sentence of fine for the offence under Sections 459 and 460, IPC is reduced to Rs. 1,000/-each, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days imprisonment on each count. The substantive sentences awarded have already been ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court.