Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced, the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. There was house breaking by night and theft in P.W. l's building on the night of 27th February, and stolen properties were recovered on the information of each of the appellants from the place shown by him on 1st March. So the appellants were charged in the alternative under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and they denied the alleged recovery. The trial was by jury and the verdict was unanimous. There was no misdirection and on the evidence the jury could reasonably have convicted the appellants under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction and the sentence of the first appellant cannot be said to be excessive. That the second appellant is a member of the criminal tribe is no ground for differentiation of sentence for an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Otherwise the appeal is dismissed.