Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code and have been mentioned to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. They have been further convicted under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each. However, sentenses were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the complainant Zalil Ahmad filed a complaint case on 22.4.77 bearing complaint case No. C 143 of 1977 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. In the complaint petition, it was stated that on 22.4.77 in between 4 to 5 a.m. all the accused persons armed with Bhala and Lathi entered into the house of the complainant and took away all the household belonging of the complainant. The complainants brothers, mother and the complainant himself objected while they were taking away their belonging of the house but they were assaulted with Lathi by the appellants. Thereafter, accused persons forcibly drove out the complainants brother from the house and accused persons occupied the same. The mother and brother of the complainant were medically treated at Sasaram hospital. The complainant went to the Thana to institute a case but the officer-in-charge of Sasaram police station refused to record his statement, therefore, he filed the complaint case. It has further stated that there was a title suit pending in the Court of 1st Munsif, Sasaram, between Mirza Zahur Beg and the father of the complainant. In the complaint petition, it was mentioned that the accused persons got a document registered illegally in respect of place of occurrnece, the house and later on, after looting household articles they occupied the house. They took away articles from the house, which were worth Rs. 12,082.00 . After commitment, the charges were framed against the accused persons and they denied their involvement in the crime. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined altogether seven witnesses, P.W. 1 is Mirza Musa Beg, P.W. 2 in Firoz Ahmad, P.W. 3 is Mirza Roshan Beg. P.W. 4 is Dr. Akhilesh Chandra, P.W. 5 is Hazara Khatoon, P.W. 6 is Zalil Ahmad P.W. 7 is Krishna Kumari, P.Ws. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined altogether seven witnesses, P.W. 1 is Mirza Musa Beg, P.W. 2 in Firoz Ahmad, P.W. 3 is Mirza Roshan Beg. P.W. 4 is Dr. Akhilesh Chandra, P.W. 5 is Hazara Khatoon, P.W. 6 is Zalil Ahmad P.W. 7 is Krishna Kumari, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have stated that in the morning of 22.4.77 when they were sleeping in their home in the village Muradabad in Sasaram they wokeup on hearing the sound of titles of their roofs. They saw accused Mirza Ekbal Beg and Mirza Ushaman armed with Lathis on their Chhat who stepped down in the Court-yard. Accused Mirza Ekbal Beg opened the main door through which the remaining accused persons entered into the Courtyard. They have further stated that accused Jubair Beg was armed with Bhala and the rest accused persons were armed with Lathis. They have stated that they identified all the accused persons in the light of electric bulb and in the light on account of morning hours. All the accused persons took away the household belongings after breaking open the look of the room. It has been further stated that when P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 objected the accused persons not to take away their boxes, the appellant Mirza Ekbal Beg assaulted Musa Beg P.W. 1 with Lathi and broke his hand. Appellant Ibrar Beg assaulted with Lathi to the complainant Zalil Ahmad thereafter, the accused persons took away the household articles by force. The family members of the house were droven out and it was occupied by the appellant. The appellants are alleged to be still in possession of the said house. These witnesses have stated that there was litigation regarding this house in the Court of 1st Munsif, Sasaram. The accused persons were not in possession of the house prior to the alleged occurrence. The complain ant P.W. 6 Zalil Ahmad has stated that just after the occurrence, he went to Sasaram Police Station to lodge information but the officer in-charge refused to record his statement and he went to Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram and filed a complaint petition. He has stated That the injured were taken to Sasaram Hospital for their treatment. He has also stated that title suit was going on regarding the disputed house prior to the alleged occurrence with one Rafia Kha. He has stated That the injured were taken to Sasaram Hospital for their treatment. He has also stated that title suit was going on regarding the disputed house prior to the alleged occurrence with one Rafia Kha. The complainant has also stated that accused persons got registered sale-deed illegally in respect of the disputed land and occupied the same by force. 4. P.W. 4 Dr. Akhilesh Chandra on 24.4.77 at 12.30 p.m. examined Hazra Khatoon and found one accomosis on the front and the lower part of the right hight 2" × 1", one swelling on the back of the right arm 2" × 1", two abrasions on the front of left leg 1/2" × 1/4" and 1/2" × 1/4", one abrasion on the left knee 1/2" × 1/4, one abrasion on the anohter aspect, of the left arm 1" × 1/4", one abrasion on the back of the left elbow, 1" × 1/2" and one accomosis on the left side of the face by the side of the ear 1" × 1/4" all the injuries on Hazara Bibi were simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi and were caused within twelve hours. Ext.-1 is the injury report of Hazara Khatoon prepared in his pen and signature. On the same day at 7.20 a.m. he examiend Mirza Moosa Beg and found one swelling. On the upper part of the right forearm and elbow one abrasion on the right side of the face 1/2" × 1/4" and one abrasion on the back of the left lower thumbs 1/4" × 1/4". He prepared injury report of the injured No. 1 was kept pending for want of X-ray. The other injuries were simple caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathis. On the same day at 7.30 this witness examiend Jalil Ahmad and found one lacerated wound on the forehead in between the eye-brow 1/2" × 1/4" × 1/4", one abrasion on the upper part of the noses 3/4" × 3/4", one accomossis on the left side of the face below eye 1" × 1", one abrasion on the upper side of the right should 1/2" × 1/4" and one abrasion on the lower part of the left leg 1/4" × 1/4", In his opinion, all the injuries were simple and within six hours. He prepared injury report Ext. 1/2 . He prepared injury report Ext. 1/2 . This witness issued some supplementary injury report in respect of injury No. 1 found on Mirza Musa Beg on the receipt of the X-ray report and plate. This witness has deposed that he found one crack fracture of lateral could of of right fingures. In his opinion this injury was grievious in nature. 5. P.W. 7 Krishna Bahadur Singh, son of Dr. Srinarain has deposed that his Father was running X-ray clinic. He was taking X-ray himself and was writing the names of the patient on the plates himself. He proved X-ray plates Ext. 3 and Ext. 3/1 taken and the name written by his father late Srinarain. The report of Dr. Srinarain was proved by this witness which was marked Exhibit-4. 6. The defence has also examined 7 witnesses. Out of them P.W. 7 Deolal Singh, a formal witness has proved complaint case No. 119/ 1986 filed by Mirza Jatur Beg Ext-A D.W. 6 Aub Hussain formal witness. D.W. 1 Mirza Yashin Beg, D.W. 2 Sakeela Banu, D.W. 3 Gaya Singh Chowkidar, they have stated that the accused persons have not committed dacoity in the house of Zalil Ahmad, D.W. 4 has stated that Zalil Ahmad has filed complaint case. 7. From the perusal of evidences, of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that they have categorically stated the manner of occurrence and fully supported the case of the prosecution which has been corroborated by Dr. P.W. 4 I not found any discrepancy in the deposition of the witness. They seem to be trustworthy and reliable. 8. Accordingly, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Secs. 325 and 320 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of these appellants requires no interference by this Court. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned Counsel has submitted that the occurrence took place 20 years ago and there was a case and counter-case in which the appellants were also assaulted by the complainant. Moreover, they are the members of the same family and they have remained in jail for some time. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence of these appellants. Moreover, they are the members of the same family and they have remained in jail for some time. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence of these appellants. Having regards to the submissions raised on behalf of the Counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place 20 years ago now, it will not be desirable to send them again in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence alter such a long time. The ends of justice will be made in the sentences of these two appellants is reduced to the period they have already gone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each to be deposited by these appellants within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment. In default, the substance sentence passed by the Court below shall be automatically restored. The amount of fine if and when realised by these appellants Rs. 1,000.00 will be paid to P.W. 1 Mirza Musa Beg and Rs. 5,00.00 each will be paid to P.W. 5 Hazara Kahtoon and P.W. 6 Zalil Ahmad complainant by way of compensation. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the sentences, this appeal is dismissed.