Judgment CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 7.3.2003/ 10.3.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad passed in S.T. No. 190 of 1999/256 of 2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. 2. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of the informant Nanhe Prasad (PW 4) was that in the night of 2nd April, 1998 at about 2.00 a.m. some criminals being variously armed obtained forcible entry in his house and committed dacoity of cash, ornaments, radio-set, sewing machine and other house-hold articles worth Rs. 30,000/- as detailed in the fardbeyan. The informant claimed that he saw the criminals in the light of public lighting in the house and also in the torch light and he also claimed to identify them, if produced again. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, present case was instituted against the accused. In T.I. Parade, the informant (PW 4) and his brother Satyendra Prasad (PW 5) identified the appellant. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and two others who were put on trial. On completion of trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. 3. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. PW 1 Suresh Choudhary and PW 2 Kanhai Ram are the seizure witnesses on the point of one iron rod left by the criminals at the PO but these witnesses have turned hostile, PW 3 Sri R.R. Tiwary is the judicial Magistrate, Ist Class who had conducted the T.I. Parade. PW 4 Nanhe Prasad (the informant) and PW 6 Satyendra Prasad are the inmates of the house and they had identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade saying that the appellant was one among the dacoits who had committed dacoity. PW 6 Lakhpatia Devi deposed that co-accused Arjun Mistry had come to her house with a motari for keeping it in her house but she had refused to keep it. 4. During argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant on merit and he made submission on the point of quantum of sentence only. Thus, hearing the learned counsel and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses I find that the conviction of the appellant under Section 395, IPC is perfectly justified. 4. During argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant on merit and he made submission on the point of quantum of sentence only. Thus, hearing the learned counsel and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses I find that the conviction of the appellant under Section 395, IPC is perfectly justified. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, as ordered by the learned trial Judge is hereby confirmed. 5. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is continuously in custody since 27th July, 1998 and thus he has remained in custody for a period of 8 years and 9 months. Learned counsel also submitted that considering the nature of the offence and other attending circumstances of the case, sentence of R.I. for 10 years is excessive and that a sentence of the period already undergone by the appellant will suffice. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a sentence of the period already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to a period already undergone by him. 7. Thus the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, as above. The appellant, who is in custody, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.