JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. There are seven appellants before this Court. Counsel for the appellants produces the death certificate of Sitaram Mochi wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant Sitaram Mochi died on 2.8.2009. The counsel, however, is not in a position to state this fact on affidavit. Let the death certificate remain on the record. This Court finds it quite plausible that Sitaram Mochi would probably be dead taking into consideration that he was 75 years of age on the date when the judgment was delivered. The Trial Court may ascertain this fact and if it is found that Sitaram Mochi is dead, the appeal will abate against him or else he would be covered by the judgment in this case. 2. Out of seven appellants in this case, apparently Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain had filed Cr. Appeal No. 157 of 1999 as well. The judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 157 of 1999 is before this Court which indicates that Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain has been acquitted by this Court vide judgment delivered in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 1999 and analogous cases on 31.1.2012. Thus, this Court will not be considering the case of Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurain. 3. The prosecution case is that a number of dacoits entered the house of the informant, P.W.3 Ratan Lal Agrawal, when he was sitting in his `Gaddi’ in front of his house. Some other employees were also sitting with the informant whereas his family members were inside the house. The said dacoits looted away cash as well as silver and gold ornaments from the house of the informant and the house of his uncle, P.W.18. The dacoits were chased and two persons were apprehended carrying the looted articles namely Manoj and Johny @ Aftab Alam. On the basis of the confessional statement of the aforesaid two accused persons, the house of the appellants was searched and recovery of cash and ornaments was made from their houses. 4. It is alleged that from the joint possession of the house of Nandu Ram, Jag Jeevan Ram, Rajan Ram and Sita Ram, about 17 ornaments were recovered. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have signed on the recovery i.e. the seizure list. It is further alleged that cash and ornaments were recovered from the house of Babloo Choudhary. 4. It is alleged that from the joint possession of the house of Nandu Ram, Jag Jeevan Ram, Rajan Ram and Sita Ram, about 17 ornaments were recovered. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have signed on the recovery i.e. the seizure list. It is further alleged that cash and ornaments were recovered from the house of Babloo Choudhary. The informant and Satya Narayan Agrawal have given details regarding the articles stolen from their houses as well as the list of ornaments which had been taken away by the accused persons. 5. During the trial, 19 witnesses were examined. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are witnesses with respect to seizure of the articles and ornaments from the house of the appellants. These two witnesses have been declared hostile. They have stated in their evidence before the court that seizure was not made in their presence, although they have not denied their signature on the seizure list. P.W.7 and P.W.15 are the witnesses on the point of occurrence and support the factum of dacoity. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who had chased some of the miscreants and was successful in arresting Manoj and Johny who are not appellants before the Court. P.W.12 is the Block Development Officer who has proved the test identification chart Ext.6. P.W.13 is A.S.I. in this case. P.W.16 and P.W.17 have supported the arrest of Manoj and Johny and recovery of articles from them. P.W. 18 is the uncle of the informant whereas P.W.3 is the informant himself. The I.O. has been examined as P.W.9. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the witnesses have not identified any of the appellants as there was no T.I. Parade held after the arrest of the appellants. The witnesses have also failed to identify the appellants in court and as such no case is made out under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission regarding the offence under Section 412, I.P.C. is that once the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and did not support the seizure of the articles from the house/possession of the appellants, the case under Section 412, IPC, would also fail. In this context the Court will now consider the evidence of P.W.3 the informant and his uncle P.W.18. In this context the Court will now consider the evidence of P.W.3 the informant and his uncle P.W.18. Ratan Lal Agrawal has supported the prosecution case as made out by him in the F.I.R. Regarding the recovery of identification of the seized articles it may be mentioned that all the articles has been marked as Exhibit which were produced in court in a sealed box. From the evidence of P.W.3 at paragraph-8 onwards he has been able to point out how he had come to identify the articles/ornaments at the time of T.I. Parade. For example, he has stated that he was able to identify silver bowl (katori) because M.L.A. was etched on the bowl which stood for Moti Lal Agrawal. Similarly, he states that he was able to identify the silver ornaments and the gold ornaments because of their design. He has pointed out each of the articles that had been produced in sealed box and identified the articles in court as well. Similarly, P.W. 18 Satya Narayan Agrawal has identified three silver spoons because his name had been written thereon. He pointed out and identified all the articles in court. According to these two witnesses, the miscreants also took away money from their house which they claim as theirs. 7. From the house of appellant Bharat Sah 17 articles were recovered. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Ext.12 the seizure list would indicate that the house was in joint possession of Bharat Sah and Mithilesh Sah – both being sons of Rama Nand Sah and as such it cannot be said that the recovery was made from the house of Bharat Sah alone. The articles recovered have been identified by P.W. 3 and P.W.18. These articles have also been produced in court. Amongst the articles recovered was the silver bowl which bore the name of Moti Lal Agrawal etched on it. Altogether 22 articles were recovered from the house of Bharat Sah, whereas 15 articles were recovered from the house of appellants Sita Ram Mochi, Nandu Ram, Jagjeewan Ram and Rajan Ram. The I.O. and the police witnesses have supported the fact that they had made search of the house of the appellants and had recovered the stolen articles from their house on the basis of confessional statements of Manoj and Johny. The I.O. and the police witnesses have supported the fact that they had made search of the house of the appellants and had recovered the stolen articles from their house on the basis of confessional statements of Manoj and Johny. Recovery was made on the very next morning of the occurrence i.e. on 15.12.94 at 11.30 and 14.12.94 in the early morning. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on certain judgments in support of his contention. Before referring to the judgments relied upon by him, I would like to refer to the order of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 1999 and analogous cases. This Court while considering the evidence against Binod Kumar Sah, Kamleshwari Yadav, and Bachchu @ Jai Prakash Kurail, has come to the conclusion that cash was recovered from accused Binod Kumar and Bachchu was not put on T.I. Parade and as such this Court has acquitted the two appellants. However, the Court has dismissed the appeal of Kameshwari Yadav from whose possession ornaments and other articles were recovered. This Court has decreased the sentence to seven years while dismissing the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that once the seizure list witnesses have turned hostile the Court ought not to proceed to convict the appellants and for this purpose he has relied on certain judgments which I will discuss separately. In the case of Govindaraju vs. State [ (2012) 4 SCC 722 ] the Supreme Court has taken into account the manner in which the court examined the evidence of hostile witnesses. While considering this aspect the Supreme Court has held that it is not always necessary that whenever a witness turns hostile the prosecution case must fail, rather the Court should consider the evidence of other witnesses before rejecting the testimony of hostile witnesses. The case before the Supreme Court was under Section 302, IPC. The informant Sub-Inspector of Police was an eye-witness. The facts reveal that P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 were eye-witnesses to the occurrence but P.W. 7 denied having given any evidence before the police u/s 161, Cr.P.C. regarding the occurrence. He was declared hostile after cross-examination. The case before the Supreme Court was under Section 302, IPC. The informant Sub-Inspector of Police was an eye-witness. The facts reveal that P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 were eye-witnesses to the occurrence but P.W. 7 denied having given any evidence before the police u/s 161, Cr.P.C. regarding the occurrence. He was declared hostile after cross-examination. P.W.9 also denied the case of the prosecution, was not confronted with the statement made under Section 161, Cr.P.C. P.W. 10 denied that he had made any statement to the police that the accused persons had come chasing one person near the P.O. P.W. 8 was an witness to the recovery of knife, whereas P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 were witnesses to the seizure memos prepared by the I.O. All the aforesaid witnesses denied having seen the occurrence and the seizure list witnesses stated that their signatures were obtained at the police station. In view of the aforesaid fact the Supreme Court came to conclusion that since there was no other witness to support the prosecution version except the informant himself, the Court could not have relied on the sole evidence of this witness. The facts of this case stands on a different footing, inasmuch as both P.W.3 and P.W.18 support the prosecution case. They have come forward with specific fact regarding the identification of the articles that were seized and were subsequently produced in court and have been able to state specifically regarding the manner in which they were able to identify the articles. Besides which the T.I. chart has been proved by P.W.12 and, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to hold that recovery should be disbelieved on the ground that the witnesses to the seizure list have turned hostile. 10. Apart from the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the appellants refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Baijnath Singh vs. State of Bihar [ 2004(1) PLJR 89 ]. This case cannot be very helpful for the appellants in view of the fact that the Court has held that once the seizure list witnesses have gone hostile, it would be Investigating Officer who would have identified the articles seized in court and prove that the articles were recovered and put on T.I. parade. This procedure apparently was not followed in the case of Baijnath Singh, whereas it has been followed in the present case. This procedure apparently was not followed in the case of Baijnath Singh, whereas it has been followed in the present case. Another case referred to by learned counsel for the appellants is the case of Baij Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. That was a case where the accused was convicted under Section 395 and Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property after commission of dacoity. The facts would reveal that in this case description of the property stolen was not given by the informant and others. The I.O. had recovered some clothes which had not been described in detail by the person to whom the apparels belonged. On the basis of vague allegation the Court held that the appellants cannot be found guilty of offence under Section 412, IPC. In the present case the informant has given the description of the stolen articles, I, therefore, see no reason to differ with the findings of the trial court. I find that appellant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 guilty of the offence. 11. As far as appellant no.1 Sitaram Mochi is concerned, this Court finds that he being 75 years of age at the time of occurrence, he could have hardly been involved in the offence and he has been made accused in this case by virtue of the fact that he was living jointly alongwith his sons. In this context it may be noted that all other accused persons were between the age of 22 and 30 years except Sitaram Mochi who seems to be the only person who was much older to the other accused persons being 75 years of age in the year 1988-89. I, therefore, acquit Sitaram Mochi for the alleged offence. 12. This Court notices that appellant nos. 4 and 6 have remained in custody over 4 years, whereas appellant no.5 has remained in custody for 1 year and 1 month. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 have remained in custody for 10 months. I also notice that Kamleshwari Yadav who is appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 1999 has been sentenced by this Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years considering the fact that he is an accused in nine other cases. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 have remained in custody for 10 months. I also notice that Kamleshwari Yadav who is appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 1999 has been sentenced by this Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years considering the fact that he is an accused in nine other cases. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants at the Bar that the present appellants have no criminal history and 16 years have elapsed since the occurrence took place. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court holds that as appellant nos. 4 and 6 have remained in custody for sufficient number of years, their sentence is altered to the period undergone. The conviction of rest of the appellants is reduced to 5 years. 13. This appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.