JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08/09.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur, in Sessions Trial No. 04(1) of 2016 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year each for the offence publishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code with further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 13.07.2015 at around 1.30 a.m. in the night Bharat Chandra Samanta, P.W. 1, along with others had hired a TATA Maxi vehicle, which is commonly referred to as "Chhota Hati" bearing No. WB 29A/7592 from Khanchi to Gorbeta to purchase vegetables for sale at Khanchi market. They stopped at Irkha Petrol Pump to fuel the vehicle. After fueling the vehicle when they reached the main road a car bearing No. WB 34AL/0760 with unknown miscreants stopped their vehicle. The miscreants threatened P.W. 1 and others with fire arms and other weapons and snatched Rs. 50,000-60,000/- from them. Thereafter, they fled away. Purnendu (PW 2) and Babulal, who were with P.W. 1 in the vehicle, were injured and admitted at Tamluk Hospital. After initial treatment Babulal was released but Purnendu was shifted to RRB Nursing Home where he was treated and released after sometime. 2. On the complaint of P.W. 1, Nandakumar P.S. Case No. 327 dated 13.07.2015 under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered for investigation. The appellants were arrested and were identified by P.W. 2 in the Test Identification Parade (for short T.I. Parade'). 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently supplementary charge sheet under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against the appellants. 4. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently supplementary charge sheet under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against the appellants. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Medical report of P.W. 2, Purnendu Adhikary, was exhibited as Exhibit 8 and the test identification report was exhibited as Exhibit 7 upon admission. 6. The defence of the appellants is one of innocence and false implication. 7. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 08/09.03.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 8. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Soubhik Mitter, learned Advocate, argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from various contractions and/or inconsistencies with regard to the manner of the incident. The evidence of P.W. 1 was inconsistent with that of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 claimed that apart from their eyes the entire body of the miscreants was covered with black cloth. Notwithstanding that, P.W. 2 identified the miscreants both in T.I. Parade as well as in Court. Such identification is, therefore, highly doubtful. Furthermore, there was a delay of 25 days in holding the T.I. Parade. It is also argued that P.W. 4, driver of the vehicle, had not identified the miscreants in Court. It is argued that non-examination of Babulal Jana and Mangal Adhikary who were present at the place of occurrence gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution case. Learned Senior Advocate also strenuously argued that there is inconsistency in the nature of injury suffered by P.W. 2 as per the medical report and the version of P.W. 1. There are interpolations and tampering in the FIR also. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmed appearing for the State argued that P.W. 2 is a reliable witness as he had been injured in the course of the incident and had the best opportunity of seeing the miscreants. There are interpolations and tampering in the FIR also. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmed appearing for the State argued that P.W. 2 is a reliable witness as he had been injured in the course of the incident and had the best opportunity of seeing the miscreants. He not only identified the miscreants in Court but as Exhibit 7, the test identification report, indicates he had in the course of T.I. Parade specifically narrated the roles of the miscreants in the incident. He argued that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is important for assessing the validity of conviction and, therefore, non-examination of other witnesses, namely, Babulal Jana and Mangal Adhikary ought not render the prosecution version improbable. He also submitted that there is no inconsistency in the medical report, Exhibit 8 if the same is examined in the light of the evidence of P.W. 2. The said witness had explained that he had not been treated at the Government Hospital and had been referred to the private nursing home where he was admitted and treated on and from 13.05.2015 to 17.05.2015. Hence, the medical reports of the nursing home describe the injuries on P.W. 2 in a more detailed manner than the referral documents of the government hospital. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 10. Let me consider the rival versions of the parties in the light of the evidence on record. 11. P.W. 1, 2 and 4 are the witnesses to the incident. 12. P.W. 1, Bharat Chandra Samanta, is the de facto complainant in the instant case. He deposed that on 13.07.2015 he along with Purnendu Adhikari (P.W. 2) Babulal Jana and Mangal Adhikary were proceeding to Garbeta in a TATA Maxi vehicle for purchasing vegetables. They stopped at Irkha Petrol Pump to fuel the vehicle. Thereafter, as they reached the main road for proceeding towards Mecheda, 5/6 miscreants in black dress entered the vehicle from the rear and one of the miscreants pressed his mouth while another snatched Rs. 6,300/- from him. Purnendu Adhikary suffered injury on his forehead. The papers of the vehicle were also snatched from the driver. After the incident, he along with Babulal went to the house of Purnendu and informed the incident to the family members. 6,300/- from him. Purnendu Adhikary suffered injury on his forehead. The papers of the vehicle were also snatched from the driver. After the incident, he along with Babulal went to the house of Purnendu and informed the incident to the family members. Purnendu's father and other family members accompanied him to the place of occurrence and found that the vehicle was no longer there. On inquiry, they were told that Purnendu had been shifted to hospital in the said vehicle. He went to District Hospital, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. He found the vehicle at the said hospital. He went to Nandakumar P.S. and lodged complaint which was written by Shri Krishna Prasad Adhikary, the father of Purnendu Adhikary. He put his signature on the FIR, Exhibit 1. He was interrogated by the police. He could not recognize the miscreants who had pressed his mouth and snatched cash from his pocket and had caused hurt to Purnendu. 13. In cross-examination, he stated that he was an inhabitant of village Irkha. There are many shops and dwelling houses on both sides of the National Highway between Irkha and Khanchi. The miscreants had stopped the vehicle at a distance of 300 cubits from the petrol pump. They were sitting at the place where goods are usually kept in the vehicle. Except the eyes of the miscreants, their entire bodies were covered with black cloth. Many vehicles pass through N.H. 41 during the day and night. Purnendu was sitting inside the driver's cabin. He along with Babulal went to see Purnendu at hospital. On the next day police did not interrogate them but the day after they were interrogated by the police. He alongwith Babulal and Mangal went to the police station and were shown some miscreants in the police lock-up but they could not identify them as those who had taken part in the incident. 14. P.W. 2, Purnendu Adhikary, is the injured witness in the instant case. He stated that he is a dealer in green vegetables. He goes to Garbeta to purchase vegetables and sells it at Khanchi market. On 13.07.2015 at about 1.30 a.m. he along with Babulal Jana, Mangal Adhikary and P.W. 1 were proceeding towards Garbeta in a TATA Maxi vehicle for purchasing vegetables. He stated that he is a dealer in green vegetables. He goes to Garbeta to purchase vegetables and sells it at Khanchi market. On 13.07.2015 at about 1.30 a.m. he along with Babulal Jana, Mangal Adhikary and P.W. 1 were proceeding towards Garbeta in a TATA Maxi vehicle for purchasing vegetables. While the vehicle was proceeding towards Mecheda after filling fuel from Irkha Petrol Pump, the miscreants who were in a white coloured private car intercepted their vehicle. He identified both the vehicles in Court. 6/7 miscreants got down from the private car and surrounded their vehicle. They assaulted them with fists, blows and iron rod and also fired at him resulting in injuries. The miscreants snatched Rs. 50,000-60,000/- from his pocket. The miscreants threatened them with dire consequences if they informed the police. Thereafter, the miscreants left the place of occurrence in the private car. In the meantime, employees of the petrol pump informed the owner of the vehicle. He was taken to District Hospital, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in the vehicle. Babulal was medically treated at District Hospital, Purba Medinipur. Medical Officer of District Hospital, Purba Medinipur did not admit him. He was admitted to RRB Nursing Home at Tamluk for treatment. He remained in the said nursing home for 4/5 days. Police officer of Nandakumar P.S. had been to RRB Nursing Home. He narrated the incident to the police. He was produced in Sub-correctional Home to identify the miscreants. He identified the miscreants during T.I. Parade as well as in Court. 15. In cross-examination he stated that within a span of one month of the incident he had been to Tamluk Sub-correctional Home for identification of miscreants. He had met police personnel of Nandakumar P.S. twice. Police Officer of Nandakumar P.S. informed him of the date of T.I. Parade and produced him before the learned Magistrate for the T.I. Parade. He stated the features of the suspects to the O.C. of Nandakumar P.S. when he met him at RRB Nursing Home. Officer in Charge of Nandakumar Police Station recorded his version. He was not shown any photograph of the suspects in the course of investigation. He stated to O.C. of Nandakumar P.S. that he sustained gun injuries on his right leg on 13.07.2015. He did not talk to the doctor who medically treated him as he regained senses around 7/7.30 p.m. 16. He was not shown any photograph of the suspects in the course of investigation. He stated to O.C. of Nandakumar P.S. that he sustained gun injuries on his right leg on 13.07.2015. He did not talk to the doctor who medically treated him as he regained senses around 7/7.30 p.m. 16. P.W. 4, Prahallad Adhikary, is the driver of the vehicle. He deposed when the vehicle was proceeding towards Mecheda through the Highway after fueling from Irkha Petrol Pump, 5/6 miscreants intercepted the vehicle. He was over powered by the miscreants and one of them slapped him on the face. They snatched the keys of the vehicle. They entered the rear side of the vehicle and snatched cash from the persons sitting there. Some of the miscreants forcibly took away Purnendu Adhikary from the driver's cabin. He heard the sound of fire. When Purnendu Adhikary was rescued, he noticed bleeding injury on his leg. The miscreants snatched papers from the vehicle which were kept in a bag in the driver's cabin. After the incident, the miscreants left in a four wheeler. Owner of the vehicle brought the duplicate key of the vehicle and Purnendu was taken to District Hospital, Purba Medinipur at Tmluk. Investigating officer seized TATA Maxi vehicle including the cash memo of Irkha Petrol Pump under a seizure list. He signed on the seizure list. Except Purnendu he could not state the names of three remaining persons who availed his vehicle on the fateful day. 17. P.W. 5, Swapan Adhikary, is the owner of the vehicle. He substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W. 4. 18. P.W. 9, Animesh Chakraborty and P.W. 10, Ajoy Kr. Mishra are the investigating officers of the case. 19. P.W. 9 deposed that he was posted at Nandakumar P.S. as S.I. of police. At that time S.I. Ajoy Kr. Mishra, P.W. 10, was the officer in charge of Nandakumar Police Station. The instant case was entrusted to him for investigation. He filled up the formal FIR. After taking charge, he visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized TATA Maxi vehicle, one fuel slip, pistol, local made firearms etc. and arrested the accused persons and pursuant to their statements seized further weapons, namely, one hand bag loaded with two cartridge, money bag etc. He also arranged for T.I. Parade of the accused persons. and arrested the accused persons and pursuant to their statements seized further weapons, namely, one hand bag loaded with two cartridge, money bag etc. He also arranged for T.I. Parade of the accused persons. He proved the sketch map of the place of occurrence. He proved the seven seizure lists which were-prepared in the course of investigation. He collected the injury report of the victim. He handed over the case diary for further investigation to S.I. Ajoy Kr. Mishra, O.C., Nandakumar P.S. as his mother died. The said police officer filed the charge-sheet. The accused persons had been arrested in connection with another case, namely, Nandakumar P.S. Case No. 328 and were shown arrested in this case. 20. In cross-examination he admitted that there was overwriting in the FIR and the word "Maruti" was struck out. The word "white car with number" was inserted without initial. He deposed that he could not get detailed accounts of the stolen articles, particulars of persons involved in the offence and nature of weapons used in the said offence. He conducted searches on 30.07.2015 and 31.07.2015. One A.S.I. Amirul Islam and some constables accompanied him. The accused persons are residents of Daspur under Paschim Medinipur, Kolaghat P.S., Bhagabnpur P.S. and Mahishadal P.S. Seizure lists did not bear the signatures of police officers attached to the said police stations. 21. P.W. 10, S.I. Ajoy Kr. Mishra was the officer in charge of the police station at the material point of time. He took over the investigation of the case from P.W. 9 and submitted charge-sheet. 22. In cross-examination he stated that prior to 28.07.2015 he had examined Bharat Samanta, Purnendu Adhikary, Babulal Jana and Prahallad Adhikary. None of them gave the description of the offenders. 23. From the aforesaid evidence it appears that P.W. 2 is the vital witness who identified the appellants in Court as well as in the course of T.I. Parade. It has also been strenuously argued that other persons, namely, Babulal and Mangal who were present at the place of occurrence were not examined in the course of trial. It has also been argued that there are interpolations in the first information report and the seizures effected in the instant case are also doubtful and had not been believed by the trial Court. 24. It has also been argued that there are interpolations in the first information report and the seizures effected in the instant case are also doubtful and had not been believed by the trial Court. 24. It is trite law if the identification of an accused by a single witness is reliable then the prosecution ought not to be disbelieved. Quality and not quantity of evidence is relevant in assessing the correctness of conviction, [see Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 150 and Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283 . Hence, I have sought to analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from this perspective. 25. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has strongly argued that P.W. 2 ought not to be believed as his version has not been corroborated by P.W. 1. I have compared the evidence of the two witnesses. They have substantially corroborated each other with regard to the dacoity committed in the night of 13.7.2015 while they were travelling in a TATA Maxi vehicle towards Mecheda after filling fuel from Irkha Petrol Pump. The variations in their versions are minor and must be judged from the respective positions occupied by them in the vehicle when they witnessed the incident. While P.W. 2 was sitting in the driver's cabin of the vehicle, P.W. 1 along with Babulal and Mangal were sitting in the rear carrier of the vehicle where the goods are stored. Hence, P.W. 2 was at an advantageous position than P.W. 1 to see the miscreants when they alighted from their car after intercepting the TATA Maxi vehicle. It is all but natural that the headlight of the TATA vehicle which was being driven on the highway was switched on at the time of the incident. More so it has come from the mouths of PWs. 2 and 4 that P.W. 2 was dragged out of the vehicle by the miscreants and assaulted. P.W. 2 was also shot at by one of the miscreants. On the other hand, P.W. 1 was sitting in the rear carrier and did not have the opportunity of seeing the miscreants with as much clarity as P.W. 2 did in the course of the incident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the minor variations in the evidence of PWs. On the other hand, P.W. 1 was sitting in the rear carrier and did not have the opportunity of seeing the miscreants with as much clarity as P.W. 2 did in the course of the incident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the minor variations in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to unfolding of the incident is not due to the falsehood of the prosecution case but due to the different positions occupied by the said witnesses in the vehicle at the time of the incident. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant also sought to improbabilise the identification of P.W. 2 by drawing my attention to the statement of P.W. 1 in cross-examination that except the eyes the body of the miscreants were covered with black cloth. A stray sentence in the deposition of one of the witnesses may not be sufficient to discredit the evidence of other witnesses, more so when such witnesses were not confronted with such statement which was inconsistent with their versions so as to enable them to explain away such contradiction. I have examined the evidence of P.W. 2 as a whole and I find that no suggestion was given to P.W. 2 that the faces of the miscreants were covered. On the other hand, version of P.W. 1 that the faces of the miscreants were covered comes for the first time in Court and is not stated either in the first information report which is recorded at his behest nor in the deposition of other witnesses. Evidence of a witness is to be read as a whole and it would be incorrect to lay over emphasis on a stray contradictory statement in the deposition which does not find resonance either in the earlier statement of such witness or from the attending facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I am loath to throw out the evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to the identification of the miscreants when the said witness had the opportunity to witness the incident from the driver's cabin of the vehicle and was injured in the course of the said incident by comparing it with the version of P.W. 1 who was sitting in the darkness in the rear carrier of the vehicle where goods are stored when the incident occurred. 26. 26. It has been argued that there was delay in holding T.I. Parade in the instant case and P.W. 2 did not disclose the features of the miscreants to the police. Reliance has been placed on a number of authorities, namely, Hasib v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283 , Wakil Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 and Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (1) E.Cr.N. (SC) 418. The incident happened on 13.7.2015 and T.I. Parade was held on 7.8.2015. One cannot discount the fact that P.W. 2 was hospitalised due to assault and was released from hospital only on 17.7.2015. It has been argued that identification in T.I. Parade is highly doubtful as there is delay in holding such T.I. Parade as it is possible that the miscreants had been shown to P.W. 2 in the interregnum. It is also argued as P.W. 1 and others had been taken to the police station and the miscreants had been shown to him whom they failed to identify, hence, it is possible that the miscreants had been shown to P.W. 2 also. I am unable to accept such contentions on the score that there was no possibility of P.W. 2 being taken to the police station along with P.W. 1 for identifying the miscreants in the police lock up as he was hospitalised at that material point of time. There is also no evidence on record that there was interaction between P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 after he had been released from hospital. P.W. 2 had stoutly denied the suggestion that photographs of the miscreants had been shown to him in the course of investigation. P.W. 9 had also denied the suggestion that faces of the miscreants had not been covered when they were brought for T.I. Parade. Perusal of the T.I. Parade report shows that all precautions had been taken to ensure that the identity of the miscreants had not been disclosed to P.W. 2 in the course of such examination. That apart, P.W. 2 had specified the roles of the various miscreants in the course of his identification before the Magistrate during such examination. Perusal of the T.I. Parade report shows that all precautions had been taken to ensure that the identity of the miscreants had not been disclosed to P.W. 2 in the course of such examination. That apart, P.W. 2 had specified the roles of the various miscreants in the course of his identification before the Magistrate during such examination. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the T.I. Parade in the instant case was held after taking all necessary precautions and the identification of the appellants therein ought not be discarded. 27. The authorities relied upon on behalf of the appellants are clearly distinguishable on facts. In AIR 1972 SC 283 (Hasib v. The State of Bihar), the Apex Court held that delay in holding T.I. Parade in the facts of that case would affect the reliability of identification of the suspects. However, no strict time schedule for holding of T.I. Parade had been laid down either in the said report or in any other authority. Identification of an accused in the course of T.I. Parade is not substantive evidence and is used to corroborate the identification of accused in Court by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the credibility of identification of suspects during T.I. Parade is to be assessed on the basis of the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule as to time frame can be prescribed for such exercise. In the aforecited report Apex Court had noted that two T.I. Parades were held on the selfsame date without ensuring precautions that the witness while attending the earlier T.I. Parade did not have the opportunity of seeing the suspects whom he identified in the subsequent T.I. Parade. The aforesaid factual matrix clearly distinguishes the cited authority from the present case. Neither in 2017 (1) E.Cr.N. (SC) 418, [Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salam v. State of West Bengal] nor in AIR 1981 SC 1392 [Wakil Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar] the identifying witnesses had been injured in the course of the incident nor had they specified the respective roles of the miscreants in the course of T.I. Parade. Neither in 2017 (1) E.Cr.N. (SC) 418, [Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salam v. State of West Bengal] nor in AIR 1981 SC 1392 [Wakil Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar] the identifying witnesses had been injured in the course of the incident nor had they specified the respective roles of the miscreants in the course of T.I. Parade. Hence, the said reports are also factually distinguishable from the present case as P.W. 2 had not only been injured in the course of dacoity but had also narrated the specific roles played by the miscreants in the course of the dacoity as noted in the T.I. Parade report (Exhibit 7). 28. It has also been argued that identification by P.W. 2 ought not to be relied upon as P.W. 4, the driver of the vehicle, had not identified the appellants in the course of trial. One cannot lose sight of the fact that P.W. 2 had been dragged out of the vehicle by the miscreants and was assaulted and shot at by them. Hence, the impact of the incident is much more on P.W. 2 than P.W. 4, the driver. Furthermore, the capacity of recollection varies from person to person. The miscreants had not only snatched Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- from P.W. 2 but he had also suffered gunshot injury in the course of the incident. Hence, the likelihood of P.W. 2 to identify all the miscreants is much more than P.W. 4 who was merely the driver of the vehicle. Thus, failure of P.W. 4 to identify the appellants, in my considered opinion, cannot be a ground to throw out the credible version of P.W. 2 in that regard. 29. Finally, it has been argued that injuries on P.W. 2 have not been proved beyond doubt as there are contradictions in the description of the nature of injuries suffered by the said witness in the version of P.W. 1 as well as the medical reports being exhibit 8. It is true that P.W. 1 had not spoken of any gunshot injury on P.W. 2. But P.W. 1 had not seen the incident of assault on P.W. 2 which occurred after the latter was dragged out from the driver's cabin of the vehicle as P.W. 1 was sitting in the rear of the said vehicle. It is true that P.W. 1 had not spoken of any gunshot injury on P.W. 2. But P.W. 1 had not seen the incident of assault on P.W. 2 which occurred after the latter was dragged out from the driver's cabin of the vehicle as P.W. 1 was sitting in the rear of the said vehicle. On the other hand, evidence of P.W. 2 and 4 leaves no doubt that P.W. 2 was initially assaulted on various parts of the body including head and thereafter shot at resulting gunshot injury on his leg. I have also examined the medical report (Exbt. 8) in the light of the evidence of P.W. 2 who stated that he had neither been admitted nor treated at the district hospital. Hence, laconic description of the injury as 'head injury' in the medical papers at the district hospital where the witness was neither admitted nor treated but merely referred for better treatment to the private hospital does not discredit the prosecution case. The medical report of the private hospital shows, apart from the gun shot injury on the leg of P.W. 2, the victim had also suffered various abrasions on his person. Omission in the referral report of the district hospital to describe the injuries of P.W. 2 in greater detail is due to the fact that he was not treated at the said hospital and not on the score that P.W. 2 had not suffered any injuries at all in the course of the incident. Furthermore, it is undisputed that P.W. 2 had been treated at RRB Nursing Home from 13.07.2015 to 17.07.2015. Accordingly, I hold there is no dispute that P.W. 2 had suffered abrasion injuries on his head and other parts of his body including gunshot injury on his left leg due to the assault by the appellants on the fateful night. 30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I upheld the conviction imposed on the appellants. 31. Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC. Although the appellants have been arrayed as accused persons in various criminal cases but the prosecution has not been able to place on record any prior conviction of the appellants. 31. Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 395 IPC. Although the appellants have been arrayed as accused persons in various criminal cases but the prosecution has not been able to place on record any prior conviction of the appellants. On the other hand, it appears that they have been acquitted from one of the cases, namely, Nandakumar PS Case No. 326 of 2015. Accordingly, I am inclined to reduce their substantive sentence and I direct that the appellants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year each for the offence under section 395 IPC. The sentence imposed on the appellants on the score of the offence punishable under section 397 IPC shall remain unaltered and both the sentences shall run concurrently. 32. The period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 33. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - I agree.