Judgment Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on Fardbeyan of one Md. Nazim in short is that he was sleeping in his house, in between the night of 27/28.12.1995, at about 11.30 PM heard some sound at the main gate of courtyard of his house. He further saw 15-20 persons who entered in a room of his house, in the room of his Bhabhi and Bhawaj and committed loot. From informant's room also miscreants took away VIP Briefcase and a box containing ornaments and cash. Detail of articles including ornaments, clothes and cash which were taken by the miscreants from different rooms of family members have been mentioned. One of the miscreants was identified as Sahi Mian Rahawa. Thereafter they committed loot in the house of Abdul Hassan @ Machchu Mian. Claim of identification is made in the light of Dibiya and lantern by different family members. Appellant's name appeared in course of investigation. He was identified by witnesses in T.I. Parade conducted in the case. 2. The trial is ended in conviction and sentence to the appellant basing material including statement of witnesses recorded in the case. 3. In all ten witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W. 1 Md. Ibrar nephew of the informant, PW. 2 Nikhat Bano wife of informant's brother, P.W. 3 Umera Khatoon wife of informant's elder brother, P.W. 4 Md. Nazim informant himself, P.W. 5 Rehana Khatoon, P.W. 6 Sanjida Khatoon, P.W. 7 Abdul Hassan in whose house also dacoity was committed, P.W. 8 Gulam Haidar in whose house also dacoity was committed. P.W. 9 Anand Lal Mahto and P.W. 10 S.N. Thakur, Judicial Magistrate. 4. There is no need of detailed discussion of witnesses in the case as conviction of the appellant is not challenged rather some liberty is sought on the point of sentence only. On this point submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant was remanded in the case on 8.1.1996, remained in custody all along during the period of trial and was allowed bail by this Court only on 21.9.1999 while this appellant has been awarded sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and the period undergone by the appellant appears more than three years and eight months, more specifically it is submitted that the said period of custody may be observed sufficient towards punishment. In the year 1998 appellant's age is shown in the judgment 54 years now certainly he is 67 years old, so I agree with the submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that period undergone by the appellant may be observed sufficient towards his punishment. 5. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 10.2.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 446 of 1996 is maintained with modification in sentence which is modified and minimized to the period already undergone by the appellant. As the appellant is on bail, he shall stand discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 6. Copy of judgment alongwith lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.