Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-These five appeals, on behalf of seven accused-persons, namely, (1) Jamil S/o Jahur Shah, (2) Siddiq S/o Mohamood Meo, (3) Netram S/o Shri Basanti Lal, (4) Rajendra S/o Sampat Ram, (5) Avinash alias Billu S/o Shri Bonre Lal, (5) Ramzan S/o Safeda Meo, and (7) Kallu S/o Safeda Meo, are directed against the common Judgment and order dated 12.2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2002 (26 of 2001), therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment .

2. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under : Accused-Appellants Under Sections Sentence of Imprisonment Jamil, Ramzan, Kallu and Siddiq

395, IPC Each accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. 397, IPCEach accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, eac of them to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.

458, IPCEach accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, each o them to further undergo one months additional simple imprisonment. Avinash @ Billu, Rajendra and Netram 412, IPCEach accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Shri R.K. Mathur and Shri N.A. Naqvi, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants Jamil, Ramzan, Kallu and Siddiq, argued the case at length on merits, but, during the course of arguments, in view of the overwhelming evidence against these four accused-appellants, and keeping in view the information given by these accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of articles in pursuance of that information, the identification-memo in respect of those articles, the identification-parade conducted in presence of these accused-persons and further the identification of these accused-persons by the prosecution witnesses, rightly did not press their appeals on merits, and contended that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the delay in recovery of articles the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court against these accused-appellants under Sections 395 and 397, IPC, may be reduced to a period of 7 years RI, which is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397, IPC.

4. Shri V.S. Yadav and Shri Praveen Balwada, the learned Counsel for accused-appellants Avinash @ Billu, Rajendra and Netram, contended that the so-called recovery of ornaments made on the basis of information given by these accused-persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is doubtful as both the independent-witnesses to the recovery memo have been declared hostile; a conviction should not be recorded only on the basis of statement of the Investigating Officer. They further contended that as per the statement of PW. 3 Gyanwati, it is clear that other articles were not mixed with the articles, in dispute, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of these three accused-appellants, therefore, there was no proper identification of the articles and the same is liable to be discarded and, in these circumstances, they contended that the accused-appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt, and the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting them under Section 412 IPC. They, alternatively, contended that, in case, the statement of PW. 17 Sudhir, the Investigating Officer, is believed and from the recovery of articles it is proved that the articles were recovered from their possession, then, at the most, the conviction of these three accused-appellants could have been recorded only under Section 411, IPC, and not under Section 412, IPC. In