JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. It has been submitted that Appellant Anil Kumar Yadav of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 196 of 1996 has passed away and, therefore, his appeal abates. 2. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years and by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawada in S. Tr. No. 1/95/2/92 by a judgment dated 21.06.1996. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.10.1993 at about 12.45 P.M. while the informant who was an Accounts Clerk in the Minor Irrigation Office of Nawada was returning from his office he was accosted by some accused persons armed with pistol who snatched away his bag. When other persons of the office protested the accused persons began to flee away dropping the bag in transaction. The S.P. arrived at the place of occurrence to whom the incident was narrated and then he along with the informant and other officials chased the miscreants who were caught by the Nalanda Police. 4. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is a formal witness whereas P.W. 6 has been tendered. P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 are the Executive Engineers and Peon of the Irrigation Department and supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2 was the Driver of the Jeep who stated that the informant had come with the bag of money and deposed about the factor of occurrence. P.W. 8 is the informant whereas P.W. 9 is the Superintendent of Police who came at the place of occurrence who all supported that the Appellants were arrested from a distance of the place of occurrence and remanded in the present case. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 have stated that when the Nalanda Police arrested the present Appellants they went there and identified them as the miscreants. No additional test identification parade was held. 6. Further from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, I find that they are consistent on the point that some miscreants had attempted to snatch the bag of the informant but it was dropped accidentally when they attempted to flee away from the place of occurrence where many persons had gathered. 6. Further from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, I find that they are consistent on the point that some miscreants had attempted to snatch the bag of the informant but it was dropped accidentally when they attempted to flee away from the place of occurrence where many persons had gathered. Thus on a fair evaluation of the prosecution case I find the same completely trustworthy but at best it would be a case of attempt of committing dacoit since the bag could not be successfully snatched away therefore the act was not complete. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but with modification in sentence to the period already undergone by them during trial because I find that the Appellants have remained in custody more than three and half years.