JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC - VI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeals No. 236 of 2004, 241 of 2004 and 242 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 1254 of 2003 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 457, 380 as well as 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonments has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that while the informant was sleeping in his house he awoke suddenly at about 03:00 A.M. and found the door of southern room broken. It is alleged that the neighbours were informed and it was detected that articles were lying scattered and several articles were found missing. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 1254 of 2003 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. PW-1, Ram Chandra Mishra, has deposed that he has come to know about the incident in the next morning. He has stated that when he went to the house of the informant he found the lock broken and articles were lying scattered. He has further stated that he could come to know that several articles were found missing. 7. PW-2, Pappu Balmiki, has stated that when on alarm he went to the place of occurrence he found the lock broken and the articles were lying scattered. This witness has stated that the informant has disclosed that several articles were stolen away. 8. PW-3, Futchun Hadi, has supported the prosecution case and has stated on similar line to what has been stated by PW-2. 9. PW-4, Vinod Kumar Hadi, has deposed that on the date of occurrence he was at his in-laws house and on hearing about the incident when he came back his parents were crying. He has further stated that several articles were stolen away by the miscreants. 10. 9. PW-4, Vinod Kumar Hadi, has deposed that on the date of occurrence he was at his in-laws house and on hearing about the incident when he came back his parents were crying. He has further stated that several articles were stolen away by the miscreants. 10. PW-5, Agnu Hadi, is the informant of the case who has disclosed that in the dead of night he had seen the lock broken and several articles were taken away. This witness had identified the articles after the same were recovered by the police. He has further stated that police had told him that the articles were recovered from the house of Manoj Kumar and Navin Kumar. 11. PW-6, Ram Brikash Prasad, had identified his signature in the seizure list and he has stated that some articles were recovered from the house of one Sanjay Koiri. 12. PW-7, Jitendra Kumar Singh, was the Investigating Officer who has deposed that on information he had apprehended the petitioner no. 1 who had confessed and on his confession his house was searched and some stolen articles were recovered. He has further deposed that the house of the accused persons were searched and several stolen articles were recovered. 13. PW-8, Kharkha Bhuiya, is the seizure list witness who had been declared hostile by the prosecution. 14. PW-9, Munna Prasad, is the seizure list witness who has denied about the seizure having been made in his persence. 15. PW-10, Rajendra Nisad, is another seizure list witness. 16. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner No. 1 was additionally convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad and were sentenced to imprisonment for various terms. Separate appeals were preferred by the convicts in Criminal Appeal Nos. 236 of 2004, 241 of 2004 and 242 of 2004 which all were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC - VI on 22.02.2005. 17. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Separate appeals were preferred by the convicts in Criminal Appeal Nos. 236 of 2004, 241 of 2004 and 242 of 2004 which all were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC - VI on 22.02.2005. 17. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It has been stated that the informant had disclosed about the articles recovered from the house of Manoj Kumar and Navin Kumar but they were never made an accused in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure itself has been falsified in view of the fact that PW-7 to PW-10 did not support the seizure. It has also been stated that PW-1 to PW- 4 are hearsay witnesses and, therefore, on account of paucity of evidence the petitioners deserves acquittal. 18. Learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned judgments. 19. The main witnesses for the prosecution in the present case are PW-5 and PW-7. PW-5 the informant apart from supporting the prosecution case has also disclosed about the identification of the recovered articles. The Test Identification Parade chart has been marked as Exhibit-7 from which it appears that PW-4 and PW-5 had identified the articles recovered. In such circumstance, therefore, the seizure list witnesses having not supported the seizure pales into insignificance. PW-7 who is the Investigating Officer has also stated in very categorical terms about the petitioner no. 1 being apprehended and subsequent thereto the house of the other accused persons were searched and recovery was also made from them. 20. In such circumstance, therefore, the recovery of the stolen articles have sufficiently been proved by the prosecution and so has the part played by the petitioners in committing theft in the house of PW-5. The learned trial court, therefore, had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 1 additionally under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court and there being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment and order of conviction is, hereby, sustained. 21. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2003. 21. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2003. The petitioners have also remained in custody for sometimes. Considering the nature of offence the period of incarceration of the petitioners in custody and the long pendency of the case the same compels this Court to reduce the sentence imposed upon the petitioners. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 22. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.