JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appeal under Section 395/397 read with Section 120B I.P.C. The order of conviction was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1st June, 2002 and the order of sentence was passed on 7th June, 2002. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- . In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further R.I. for six months. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed this appeal on merits and has prayed for indulgence in the matter of sentence on the ground that out of seven years sentence the appellant has already undergone a sentence of about six years and ten month s including the remissions. He does not press for reduction in the substantive sentence as seven years is the minimum sentence prescribed unbder Section 397 I.P.C. He, however, prays for indulgence in regard to sentence of fine on the ground that the appellant is a poor person and is not in a position to pay the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Judge. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the Trial Court records. According to the prosecution, on 4th August, 1998, at about 12.00 in the noon, the appellant along with his co-accused commit ted a dacoity in the house of PW-2, Indu Gupta at Hari Nagar Ashram. The appellant and his co-accused entered the house of PW-2 forcibly after pushing her aside. Two of them were holding pistols and rest were having knives. They demanded the keys of A mirahs from Indu Gupta and thereafter ransacked the house. They also removed the gold ornaments of the ladies and left the house after tying the hands and feet of PW-2, Indu Gupta and her mother-in-law, Urmilla Gupta. The prosecution case was supported by PW-2, Indu Gupta, who not only supported the prosecution case in material particulars but also identified the appellant as one of the dacoits. She also identified the case property which had been recovered from the dacoits in the course of the investigations. PW-3, another Indu Gupta, Devrani of PW-2 also supported the prosecution case and corroborated the testimony of PW-2. She also identified the appellant as one of the dacoits who had committed dacoity in thei house.
2. In the course of investigations, after the apellant was arrested, he made a disclosure statement `Ex.PW-18/B’ and got the looted property recovered which was seized vide Memo `Ex.PW-18/A’. This property was identified by the complainants as the property which had been looted from their house. Learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the appellant came to the conclusion that the appellant along with his other co-accused had hatched a conspiracy to commit a dacoity and thereafter had committed t he dacoity in the house of complainant. This Court finds no good grounds for taking a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is upheld. The sentence of seven years imprisonment as awarded to the appellant is the minimum sentence prescribed but a lenient view can be taken in regard to fine inasmuch as the appellant appears to be not in a position to pay fine. Accordingly, the sentence of fine stands reduced to Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of which he will undergo further R.I. for one month. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.