JUDGMENT ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument with regard to sentence only. In order to substantiate his plea, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though there happens to be single identification by way of evidence of PW-2, the informant and a sketchy source of identification by voice through PW-3, Sahibul Haque and further, having remained under custody for more than six years without having criminal antecedents as well as even after release on bail, prosecution had not disclosed subsequent involvement of the appellant, at least, deserves modification in a way sentence already undergone, more particularly, in the background of occurrence being of the year 1995. It has also been submitted that from the evidence of PW-2, the informant, it is apparent that he lost the property worth of Rs. 40,000/- which the appellant, in terms of Section 357 Cr. P.C. intends to compensate. Learned APP submitted that such kind of offer could be accepted by way of repentance. Considering the rival submission as well as appreciating overall situation prevailing on the record, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial court, substantial sentence is modified as imprisonment already undergone with an enhancement of fine from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 40,000/- which the appellant will deposit within three months and till then, the bail granted by this Court is extended in terms of Section 437(A) of the Cr. P.C. In case of default, the appellant will have to undergo RI for two weeks. If the fine is deposited, then in that event, the learned trial court will pay Rs. 30,000/- to Ibrahim after noticing him. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the instant appeal is dismissed.