JUDGMENT : - K.C.Bhargava 1. THIS is an appeal against the order and judgment dated 8th September, 79 passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur convicting and sentencing all the appellants under Sections 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to two years R I. and 1 year's R. I. respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. THE facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R., Exhibit Ka 5 are that on 17.12.76 at 11 in the night, the appellants, namely. Ram Janam, Vishwa Nath and Mahtim and four other unknown persons came at the house of the complainant Indra Deo. All the appellants and 4 unknown persons were armed with lathies and dandas. Ram Janam appellant was also armed with Katta. They called his father by name. On this his father asked as to who has come. Thereupon, Ram Janam appellant said that some guests have come and they want to talk to him. On this, the complainant and his father came out of the Chappar. Thereupon, all the accused along with the unknown persons started weilding lathies and dandas. In the mean time, Mahtim and Vishwa Nath appellants were caught hold by them. On their raising alarm and when they tried to catch hold Ram Janam appellant, he fired a shot, the pellets of which hit his father Swaroop, P.W. 3. All these appellants thereafter ran away. This incident was witnessed by Ghuman, P. W. 2, Sag Ram, Kali Charan, Jag Nandan and Dukhanti, D.W. 1. It has also been mentioned that there is enmity between them and Ram Janam on account of a land, which has resulted in this incident. The F.I.R of this incident was lodged at the police station on 18.12.76 at 6.30 am. Thereafter, the investigation was done by Gajadhar Singh, P.W. 6, who submitted the charge-sheet. The appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 307, read with Section 149, I.P.C. Appellants Vishwa Nath and Mahtim were also charge sheeted under Section 147, I.P.C. and the appellant Ram Janam was charge-sheeted under Section 148, I.P.C. also. 3. THE prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Out of which, Indra Deo, P.W. 1 and Swaroop, P.W. 3 are the eye-witnesses. Four persons, namely, Indra Deo, P.W. 1, Dharamdeo, Swaroop, P.W.3 and Smt. Sheodasi, W/o Swaroop, were victims of the incident. Their injuries were examined by Dr. 3. THE prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Out of which, Indra Deo, P.W. 1 and Swaroop, P.W. 3 are the eye-witnesses. Four persons, namely, Indra Deo, P.W. 1, Dharamdeo, Swaroop, P.W.3 and Smt. Sheodasi, W/o Swaroop, were victims of the incident. Their injuries were examined by Dr. Onkar Nath Rai, P.W. 5 on 18.12.76. 4. DEFENCE also examined Dukhanti, D.W. 1, who has been mentioned as a witness in the F.I.R and Ram Krit, D.W. 2.. After considering entire evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this Judgment, the appellants have come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned trial court. 5. LEARNED counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. have been heard. 6. LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that there was enmity between the appellants and Swaroop, P.W. 3 on account of which the incident is alleged to have taken place. He has taken the court through the statement of the .witnesses. P.W. 1. Indra Deo, who is the son of Swaroop, P.W. 3, has stated that the enmity between him and the appellants were from the very beginning since before his birth. While Swaroop, P.W. 3 has stated that this enmity is from two years. LEARNED counsel for the appellants: has further argued that Swaroop, P.W. 3, has stated that he could not see as to whether there were 'Dhatas' in the face of accused persons or not. As a matter of fact, these are minor contradictions and they do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Such minor contradictions are generally found in the statements of the; truthful witnesses. Therefore, these minor contradictions cannot belie the prosecution case and no reliance can be placed on these contradictions. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that there was no immediate motive or cause for the appellants to have gone at 11 in the night at the residence of the complainant Swaroop, P.W. 3. As to what impelled the appellants to commit this crime in the night is only known to them and it cannot be said on the basis of evidence on record that there can be any other ground for falsely implicating the appellants. As to what impelled the appellants to commit this crime in the night is only known to them and it cannot be said on the basis of evidence on record that there can be any other ground for falsely implicating the appellants. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that it appears that some dacoity was committed at the house of the complainant and when nothing was looted from the house of the complainant, he falsely implicated the appellants in order to take revange from him. In order to support this argument that a dacoity was committed at the house of the complainant, Dukhanti, D.W. 1 has been examined. It may be recalled that he has been named in the F.I.R. as one of the witnesses. In this connection, it may be relevant to mention that Padarath had three sons-Gajadhar, Raghuvir and Jawahar. Gajadhar had Swaroop, P.W. 3, and Indradeo, P.W. 1, who are on the prosecution side. Raghuvir had three sons-Ram Janam, Vishwa Nath and Ram Krit. Vishwa Nath has one son Mahatim. [In this way, Ram Janam and Vishwa Nath and Mahatim three sons of Raghuvir are appellants in this case, who have been accused in the offence. Ram Krit, who is D.W. 2 is also the son of Raghuvir and he has reason to depose in favour of the appellants being from the same father. Similarly Padarath had third son Jawahir, who had one son Dwarika, Dwarika's son is Dukhanti, who has been examined as D.W. 1. Thus in view of the pedigree mentioned above, it is also clear that the appellants and the accused persons belong to the same family but they were sons of different real brothers. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that this incident never happened and instead of the dacoity and present incident has been alleged to have taken place at the residence of Swaroop, P.W. 3 and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. THUS I find on the basis of evidence on record that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt and hence the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to this, effect are perfectly justified and are to be confirmed. 8. 7. THUS I find on the basis of evidence on record that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt and hence the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to this, effect are perfectly justified and are to be confirmed. 8. ON the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the sides are near relations and in the interest of justice the appellants be not sent to jail again otherwise their relations will worsen. He has further argued that in order to give a chance to the parties to improve their relations in future, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court should be reduced. He has argued that the appellants have been in Jail for about 5 months. Keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the fact that the appellants have already remained in Jail for about 5 months, it will be desirable that the sentence imposed on the appellants be reduced to already undergone in order to give a chance to the appellants to improve their relations with the complainant. The appellants by remaining in Jail for a period of 5 months have already suffered for the crime they have committed. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed partly. The appeal is allowed in part. Conviction recorded by the learned trial court is maintained. But the sentence: is reduced to already undergone. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed in part.