A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The judgment dated 22.4.1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. No. 24/132 of 1991 convicting the appellant under Section 412 IPC and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years is impugned in this appeal.
2. On the basis of an FIR filed on 3.3.1991 alleging that some unknown persons entered into the house of the informant armed with guns and other weapons and committed dacoity, the criminal action was set in motion. Seven accused persons including the appellant were arrested who faced their trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 457/398/216-A of Indian and Penal Code besides Section 9-B(b) of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The learned trial Court found all the accused persons not guilty of the offences under Sections 457/395/216-A of IPC and also Section 9-B(b) of the Indian Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and acquitted them of the said charges. However, the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 412 IPC and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as aforesaid.
3. The sole reason basing upon which the appellant was found guilty under Section 412 IPC was that the M.O.I., a tape-recorder, which was stolen from the house of the informant P.W. 1 was recovered from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 12 who was the O.I.C. of Remuna Police Station deposed in Court that on 17.3.1991 he proceeded to village Kasinathpur and arrested the appellant while the latter was staying in the house of his father-in-law, namely, Yasin Khan. He found the appellant in possession of a tape-recorder with cassettes and batteries and seized the same as per the seizure-list Ext.9. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of P.W. 12. and on the basis of Ext.9 came to the conclusion that as the tape-recorder M.O.I, was admittedly a stolen property and was found in possession of the appellant the appellant was guilty of offence under Section 412 IPC. But then the fact remains that the appellant was the son-in-law of aforesaid Yasin Khan, who was not an accused in the case. Apart from the said fact, the appellant had gone to the house of his in-laws and in course of seizure of the tape-recorder, P.W. 12 found that the appellant was in possession of the same. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of prosecution as to whether the appellant had taken the seized tape-recorder to the house of Yasin Khan or the same was all along there earlier. The tape-recorder in question was seized from the house of Yasin Khan who was not an accused in the case. Only because at the time of seizure the appellant who had been to his in- law's house, was in possession of the tape-recorder, it cannot be conclusively held that he was the person who was in possession of the tape-recorder. Be that as it may, admittedly the tape- recorder was a stolen Article which was seized from the possession of the appellant, though there is some doubt with regard to the fact as to whether the appellant was the receiver of the said stolen Article or not.
4. All the co-accused of the appellant who faced trial along with the appellant have been acquitted in the case. It is submitted that the appellant was in custody for more than two and half years, from 23-3-1991 to 13-10.1993, and now he is on bail. Taking a liberal view, while dismissing this appeal, I reduce the sentence of the appellant from rigorous imprisonment for seven years to the period he remained in custody as aforesaid.
The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.