Judgment : ( 1 ) THE two appellants namely, Masud Sheikh alias Maksud Sheikh and Milon Sheikh in Cr. Appeal No. 347/ 1998 (P) and the other two appellants namely, Jamirul Sheikh and Rubial Sheikh in Cr. Appeal No. 352/1998 (P), were tried together for the charges under Sections 25 (1-b) (A) and 26 (1) and 27 of the Arms Act and by the impugned judgment dated 6-8-1998 in Sessions Case No. 105/1995, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, dumka convicted these four appellants for the offence under Sections 25 (1-b) (A) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for a period of three years each for the offence under Sections 25 (1-b) (A) and R. I. for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 26 (1) of the arms Act. The other two accused namely, hasir Sheikh and Antu Sheikh, who were also tried with these four appellants, were acquitted from the charges by the same impugned judgment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that with regard to an occurrence of a dacoity in a Bus in the night of 3-11-1994, six miscreants were arrested in connection with shikaripara P. S. Case No. 47/1994 and a case under Sections 395, 397 and 412, IPC was registered against them. In course of investigation, search was made of the ersons of the apprehended miscreants, who were apprehended during investigation of the aforesaid case of dacoity. It is said that from possession of the appellant Masud sheikh, one live cartridge and from possession of the appellant Milon Sheikh, two live cartridges were recovered. Similarly, from possession of the appellant Jamirul Sheikh a country-made pistol loaded with cartridges and one more live cartridge was recovered, whereas from possession of the appellant rubial Sheikh two live cartridges were recovered. ( 3 ) IN order to establish the charges, altogether 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of the aforesaid 10 prosecution witnesses, P. Ws. 8, 10, 12 and 13 were declared hostile, whereas P. Ws. 3, 6 and 7 were tendered for cross-examination. ( 3 ) IN order to establish the charges, altogether 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of the aforesaid 10 prosecution witnesses, P. Ws. 8, 10, 12 and 13 were declared hostile, whereas P. Ws. 3, 6 and 7 were tendered for cross-examination. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in spite of the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case regarding recovery of the firearms and cartridges from the possession of the appellants, they have been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the trial court. ( 5 ) FROM the evidence of PW-1 it appears that he has stated that on hearing hulla that a dacoity was being committed in a Bus and the villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence but by that time the dacoits had already fled away. However, the passengers of the Bus narrated the story of dacoity and assault on them. At that very time the police party arrived and, thereafter, they started searching for the miscreants in the jungle. He further stated that later on, he heard that some of the miscreants were apprehended by the police. In his cross examination this witness has specifically stated that in his presence nothing was recovered from the possession of any of the accused. ( 6 ) PW-2, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that the persons from whose possession firearms were recovered were present in court and he identified those accused persons, which was not challenged by the defence. However, in his cross-examination this witness admitted that he cannot give the specific name of the accused persons and also as to from whose possession what was recovered. This witness identified the appellants in the dock and stated that from their possession firearms, cartridges etc. were recovered. ( 7 ) PW-4 has also identified the accused persons in the dock stating that from their possession the firearms were recovered. But in his cross-examination he stated that he couldnt say the name of the accused persons from whose possession what was recovered. ( 8 ) PW-5 is a hearsay witness and he has stated that the Chaukidar told him that the miscreants were arrested with the arms. But in his cross-examination he stated that he couldnt say the name of the accused persons from whose possession what was recovered. ( 8 ) PW-5 is a hearsay witness and he has stated that the Chaukidar told him that the miscreants were arrested with the arms. ( 9 ) PW-9 is the informant and he has stated in his evidence that the six dacoits were apprehended by the police, who were present in the dock and, thereafter, he specifically stated that from the possession of accused Jamirul Sheikh apart from the recovery of the looted articles, one country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered and from possession of Rubial sheikh apart from the other articles, two live cartridges were recovered. He further stated that from the possession of accused Milon sheikh apart from the other articles, live cartridge and from possession of the accused masud Sheikh apart from the other articles, one live cartridge, were recovered. The firearms and other seized articles were produced during trial and were marked as material Ext. ( 10 ) FROM the evidence of the witnesses, which have been discussed above, I find that the prosecution by cogent evidence has established the case by producing those incriminating articles, which were recovered from the possession of the appellant and proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts regarding the recovery of the illegal firearms from the possession of the appellants. Nothing specific has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant so as to make the evidence of these witnesses unreliable or unbelievable. ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, I hold that the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellants for the charges under Sections 25 (1-b) (A) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act against them. ( 12 ) SO far the sentences are concerned, it appears from the record that all the appellants have remained in custody for more than four years and, therefore, in my view, they have sufficiently been punished for the offences, committed by them and it would not be justiceable to send them to jail again for these offences. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, by affirming the conviction of the appellants, passed by the trial court, the sentences awarded by the trial court to each of the appellant is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by them. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, by affirming the conviction of the appellants, passed by the trial court, the sentences awarded by the trial court to each of the appellant is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by them. ( 14 ) WITH this modification in sentence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed. --- *** --- .