ORDER : Heard Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 05.06.1998 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1995 by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.11.1995 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in R.P. Case No. 7 of 1987 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year has affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a raid was conducted in between Muri and Barlanga Railway station. The petitioner was apprehended with four numbers of M.S. Keys which belong to the Railways. After completion of enquiry prosecution report was submitted and cognizance was taken under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Posse) Act, 1966. After framing of charge trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. P.W.-1, Charka Murmu, is the complainant who had stated that a raid was conducted between Muri and Barlanga Railway Station where the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession M.S. Keys were seized. 6. P.W.-2, A. Narsimha Rao, is the authority who had examined four numbers of M.S. Keys and found them to be Railways property and in a working condition. This witness has proved Exhibit – 4 which is the test report. 7. P.W.-3 Mahendra Sahani Diwakar, has stated that he was posted at R.P.F. Post, Muri as Head Constable. He was a member of the raiding party who had disclosed about the petitioner being apprehended with four numbers of M.S. Keys. This witness had prepared the seizure list and also identified his signature in the seizure list (Exhibit – 1/a). 8. P.W.-4, Lakshman Chaudhary, was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector, R.P.F. Post, Muri. This witness was also the member of the raiding party who had supported the recovery of four numbers of M.S. Keys from the possession of the petitioner. 9. After conclusion of the trial the petitioner was convicted by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi on 23.11.1995 in R.P. Case No. 7 of 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 9. After conclusion of the trial the petitioner was convicted by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi on 23.11.1995 in R.P. Case No. 7 of 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1995 which however was dismissed on 05.06.1998 by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. It has been stated that undue reliance has been placed on the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that all the witnesses examined are Railways personnel and absence of any independent witnesses having been examined by the prosecution no reliance can be placed on the evidence of witnesses so examined. 11. It appears that P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 were the members of the raiding party and on a raid being conducted between Muri and Barlanga Railway Station the petitioner was apprehended with four numbers of M. S. Keys which on being tested were found to be Railway property. The evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are consistent, corroborative and categorical with respect to the incriminating materials recovered from the possession of the petitioner. These witnesses do not have a personal grudge against the petitioner and, therefore, the false implication of the petitioner is ruled out. Absence of any independent witnesses having been examined by the prosecution would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of the members of the raiding party. The materials so seized were detected to be Railway property as per the evidence of P.W.2. 12. Circumstances enumerated above can lead to a sole conclusion that the petitioner had rightly been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court so far as the order of conviction is concerned. 13. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution since the year 1987. 13. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution since the year 1987. The petitioner has suffered mental agony on account of long pendency of the case for about three decades and the petitioner has also for sometime remained in custody. Considering the nature of offence and the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner in custody the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is, therefore, modified to the period already undergone by him. 14. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.