JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J.-This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th day of February, 2005 and 26th February, 2005 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 177 of 2001, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant Sudhir Mallick @ Goga Mallick for committing offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15/16.7.1999 the informant Munna Sao was sleeping in his house and at about 2 O'clock in the night, on the sound of breaking the door, he woke up and saw from window that 5-7 miscreants being armed with danda, pistol and sabal were present in the courtyard. He raised hulla, but the miscreants somehow opened the door and entered in the room and they took out Rs. 5,000/- which was kept in the dressing table. The miscreants also entered in another room and took away some clothes. One of the miscreants assaulted the informant by means of butt of pistol on his forehead. They also took away cash Rs. 7,000/- from the possession of the informant's father and they caused injury to him also. 3. In course of trial altogether five witnesses have been examined; out of whom: P.W. 1 Munna Sao, he is the informant and he has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 2 O'clock in the night he was sleeping in his house. He woke up on the sound of breaking the door. He saw from the window that 4-5 miscreants entering into the house and they took out cash kept in the dressing table. He further stated that miscreants inflicted injury upon' his head by the' handle of Katta, due to which bleeding injuries were caused to him. They also took away clothes, cash and utensils. He further stated that dacoits were 25-30 in numbers. He identified the culprits in the T.I. Parade. He also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade as one of the dacoits. P.W. 2 Balram Sao. He was also sleeping in the same house. They also took away clothes, cash and utensils. He further stated that dacoits were 25-30 in numbers. He identified the culprits in the T.I. Parade. He also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade as one of the dacoits. P.W. 2 Balram Sao. He was also sleeping in the same house. He stated that after entering into the room miscreants took out cash Rs. 7,000/- .from his pocket. They also looted away utensils and clothes and assaulted him. However, he did not identify any of the dacoits. P.W. 3 is a formal witness on the point of seizure. P.W. 4 is also a formal witness on the point of seizure. P.W.5 is the Magistrate he has proved that the informant Munna Sao identified this appellant Sudhir Mallick @ Goga Mallick in the T.I. Parade. 4. From the evidence adduced on behalf of .the prosecution, I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the said offence. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. So far the sentence is concerned, as the appellant has already remained in custody since 11-8-1999 i.e. for more than 10 years, 8 month and thereby he has already served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Therefore, the appellant is hereby directed to be released forthwith, if not already released and if not wanted in any other case. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.