Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th July, 1998 passed by the learned 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 1997 by which the learned Court below has modified the sentence of the petitioners passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Ist Class, Rosera in Tr. No. 183 of 1997, G.R. No. 666/90 whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 323, 324, 326 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, two years under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and three months under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 4.10.1990 at about 11 a.m. the informant Prayag Mahto was sitting on his darwqja with his brother, Ram Prakash Mahto (petitioner No. 1.) came alongwith his son Madan Mahto (petitioner No. 2) and they started digging ground in front of his darwqja. It has been stated that on protest by the informant petitioner No. 1, Ram Prakash Mahto, assaulted him with spade and petitioner No. 2 Madan Mahto assaulted with brick and stone. When the informants father came for rescue he too was assaulted by the accused persons. There after the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded and on the basis of the Jardbeyan the police registered a case as Bibhutipur PS case No. 144 of 1990. After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. This revision-petition has been admitted only on the question of sentence therefore it is not necessary to go into the merit of this case. 4. I have carefully examined the documents of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Both the Courts have discussed the evidence of the witnesses in detail and 1 do not want to re- appraise the same as an Appellate Authority. I also found that the facts of the case have been properly evaluated. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below appear to be correct and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I also found that the facts of the case have been properly evaluated. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below appear to be correct and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1990 and there was a case and a counter-case. He has further submitted that the petitioners are the first offenders and there is no previous criminal antecedent against them. He has further submitted that moreover they have remained in Jail for some time, therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them. 6. Keeping in view the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners have already gone through a mental and financial crisis during the prolonged litigation lasting for about 11 years now if will not be proper to send the petitioners again in Jail to serve out the remaining period of sentences. In my view, the ends of justice will be met if the sentences of these two petitioners are reduced to the period they have already undergone in Jail. 7. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this revision petition is dismissed.