Judgment J.N.Dubey, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated llth February, 1986 of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka partly allowing the appeal of the applicants and confirming the order dated 7th July, 1979 of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda convicting the applicant No. 1 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and applicant No. 2 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 9th November, 1976 informant Ram Janam Singh found that his potato crop has been damaged. When he was complaining to Baijnath Sao, Jamuna Sao, SivjiGope and Bado Gope about the damage caused to his potato crop by someone, the Wado Sao started quarreling with him and ordered his family members to finish him, while Wado Sao caught hold of the informant, applicant No. 1 Sadho Sao gave Bhujali blow causing serious injury in his right hands. When he fell down after receiving the injury the applicant No. 2 gave few lathi blows on his right leg. The Informant lodged a First Information at Police Station Moharma on 10-11-1976 on the basis of which the applicants alongwith co-accused Wado Sao were tried by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. On his coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt convicted the applicant No. 1 under Section 326, IPC and applicant No. 2 and co-acccused Wado Sao under Section 323, IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year each respectively. They filed appeal to the Sessions Judge, Dumka which was partly allowed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka on 11-2-1986. While acquitting the co-accused Wado Sao he converted the conviction of applicant No. 1 from under Section 326 to under Section 324, IPC and reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment and also reduced the sentence of applicant No. 2 from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, IPC. Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. This revision was admitted only on the question of sentence. Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. This revision was admitted only on the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the applicant contented that the sentence awarded to the applicants is excessive considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I find no substance in this argument of the learned counsel. The sentence awarded to the applicants cannot be considered severe under any circumstances. 5. The applicants have remained in jail for about two weeks during the pendency of this revision. Now it has two be considered whether they should be sent to servej out the remaining period of sentence after about twent years of the incident. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it will not be proper to send them to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence with respect to the incident which has Itaken place on 8th November, 1976 and that it will be in the interest of justice that their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part while maintaining the coviction of the applicants, their sentences is Revision allow.