JUDGMENT 1. - By this appeal all the six accused-appellants have challenged their conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2003. 2. Charge against the accused-appellants as per the statement (F.I.R. Ex.P-1, lodged by Shyamlal) Was that on 1.1.2001, in the early morning at 3.10 A.M., the accused made a criminal conspiracy and committed decoity on the petrol pump, namely, M/s. Beniwal Brothers at village Rojdi and snatched 10-15 thousands rupees, oil and grease boxes. Accused Sucha Singh fired on the neck of salesman Kuldeep Sharma and committed his murder. All the accused attempted to commit murder of Sharan Singh by deadly weapons. 3. Upon this report, the police registered a case vide F.I.R. No. 1/2001 and commenced investigation. During investigation, autopsy of dead body of Kuldeep Sharma was conducted by the Medical Officer. Shyamlal and Sharwan were medically examined. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken. Accused were arrested and on the basis of their informations, one battery, one lathi and one empty jerican of 4 ltrs. from accused Gurdeo Singh; one lathi and one empty jerican of one ltr. from accused Madan Singh, one desi pistol of 315- bore and one jerican of one ltr. filled with mobil oil from accused Desraj; one sword and one box of grease of 2 kg. from accused Darshan Singh; one iron rod and one empty jerican of one ltr. from accused Narayan Singh and one desi pistol of 12-bore, one empty jerican of 4 ltrs. and one radio of Philips make from accused Sucha Singh were recovered. The police also seized Jeep No. RJ 13 7C 6833. Thereafter, seven accused were charge-sheeted including one absconded accused. Accused Sucha Singh was charged under Sections 396, 397 and 398 of I.P.C. along with Section 27 of the Arms Act and rest of the accused were charged under Sections 396, 397 and 398 of I.P.C. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced 111 documents along with 26 articles. Statements of the accused- appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They produced four witnesses and five documents in defence. After hearing he arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for life imprisonment under Section 396 of I.P.C., for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. Statements of the accused- appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They produced four witnesses and five documents in defence. After hearing he arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for life imprisonment under Section 396 of I.P.C., for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 of I.P.C. and for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 398 of I.P.C. Accused-appellant Sucha Singh was also convicted and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants does not want to question the conviction of the accused-appellants under various sections as referred above but it was submitted that in this case, one of the accused, namely, Gurdeo Singh, has been acquitted on 9.8.2007 by giving benefit of doubt in Sessions Case No. 29/2005. Charge-sheet against him was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. as he was earlier absconding and rest of the accused are in custody for more than 7 years. Therefore, they should be sentenced for the period already undergone. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned trial judge. 6. We have gone through the record of the case and the circumstances under which the crime has been committed including the order of acquittal recorded for one of the co-accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh who was arrested later on. For an offence under Section 396 I.P.C., maximum punishment is death sentence or life imprisonment, or 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine. Looking to the age of the accused and their antecedents, particularly the fact that a co-accused has been acquitted, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice will meet if the accused-appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years instead of life imprisonment recorded by the trial Judge for the offence under Section 396 of I.P.C. For rest of the offences, sentences are not required to be interfered. 7. 7. Consequently, we allow this appeal in part while maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 396, 397 and 398 of I.P.C. including the sentence awarded to accused Sucha Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and reduce the sentence of the accused-appellants under Section 396 of I.P.C. to 10 years imprisonment from life imprisonment. However, the fine is maintained. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. All the accused are in jail. They will serve out the sentences as awarded.Appeal partly allowed. *******