JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2005, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No. 38 of 2005, whereby and where-under judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. Case No. 281 of 2002, by which the petitioner had been convicted for the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 2.8.2002 at about 12.35 P.M., informant had gone inside Jama Masjid situated in Ambakothi, Latehar for offering Friday Namaj. It is alleged that a blue coloured T.V.S. Suzuki Motorcycle bearing registration no. BR15-7588, which was parked outside the Masjid, was found missing when the informant had come out after offering his prayers. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Latehar P.S. Case No.75 of 2002 was instituted for the offence under sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken and after charge was framed, trial proceeded. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 4. P.W-1-Rajesh Kumar Singh has not stated anything about the occurrence. 5. P.W-2-Abdul Kayum Khan has deposed that when he came out from Masjid he heard that motorcycle of the informant has been stolen. This witness has stated that he does not know the accused. 6. P.W-3-Md. Jamal Mian has stated that when he came out from Masjid after offering prayers he came to know that the motorcycle of the informant has been stolen. This witness is the son in law of the informant who had searched for the vehicle but the same could not be found. 7. P.W-4-Santosh Kumar has merely stated that he could come to know about the incident of theft from others. 8. P.W-5-Ram Kishun Paswan had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and had also investigated into the offence. This witness had inspected the place of occurrence, took the restatement of the informant, and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has further deposed that he had received information that Galib Ansari and Guddu Khan had stolen the motorcycle and had kept it in the house of the petitioner. Galib was arrested from his house. This witness had inspected the place of occurrence, took the restatement of the informant, and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has further deposed that he had received information that Galib Ansari and Guddu Khan had stolen the motorcycle and had kept it in the house of the petitioner. Galib was arrested from his house. This witness has also stated that he came to Ranchi and raided the house of the petitioner, where he was arrested and the stolen motorcycle was recovered. After recovery, a seizure list was also prepared. After conclusion of investigation, this witness had submitted charge-sheet. 9. P.W-6-Rajdeo Prasad was the in-charge of Nagri O.P. on 2.8.2002. He has deposed that P.W-5 had requested him for conducting a raid in the house of the petitioner and pursuant to the same, a raid was made which led to recovery of a blue coloured Suzuki Motorcycle. This witness had prepared the seizure list, which is also in his own handwriting. 10. P.W-7-Md.Sahid is the son of the informant, who had stated that when he and his father had come out of the Masjid after offering prayers they found the motorcycle missing. He has stated that he had got the motorcycle from the police station. 11. P.W-8-Md.Amanullah is the informant of the case, who has supported the prosecution case. This witness had given a written report to the police station about the theft. He has admitted to have not seen any one stealing the motorcycle. 12. P.W-9-Md. Usman and P.W-10-Md. Saffique are the seizure list witnesses, who have stated about the signing on blank papers. 13. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he had denied the occurrence. 14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure list witnesses did not support the seizure of the motorcycle. He has stated that there is no independent witness with respect to the seizure of the motorcycle save and except P.W-9 and P.W-10, who have merely stated that they had signed on blank papers. A submission has been advanced that P.W-7 and P.W-8 are not the independent witnesses. Learned counsel submits that some vital witnesses like Jaipal Oraon were not examined by the prosecution and there are vital contradictions with respect to theft of recovery shown in the seizure and the statement of P.W-5. 15. A submission has been advanced that P.W-7 and P.W-8 are not the independent witnesses. Learned counsel submits that some vital witnesses like Jaipal Oraon were not examined by the prosecution and there are vital contradictions with respect to theft of recovery shown in the seizure and the statement of P.W-5. 15. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. The evidence of the witnesses more specifically P.W-3, P.W-7 and P.W-8 have established the fact that T.V.S. Suzuki Motorcycle belonging to P.W8 was kept outside the Masjid but the same was stolen. P.W-5, the Investigating Officer, has revealed about the recovery of the stolen motorcycle from the house of the petitioner, which fact has been corroborated by one of the members of the raiding party namely P.W-6-Rajdeo Prasad. Defence has failed to elicit any vital contradictions from the evidence of the witnesses and have also failed to provide any reason as to why petitioner shall be falsely implicated. Merely because P.W-9 and P.W-10 have not supported the seizure but that by itself would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the seizure having been proved by the evidence of P.W-5 and P.W-6. 17. Learned trial court thus on proper appreciation of the materials available on record had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which was affirmed in appeal and which is sustained in the present revision application. 18. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that petitioner has remained in custody for sometime and is facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 2002. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner deserves some reduction in the sentence awarded to him. Accordingly the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 19. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.