Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Among the appellants, while appellant No. 1 suffered conviction under Section 307/114 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years, rest two appellants suffered conviction under Section 225 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. 2. At the outset I may refer to some of the salient features of the prosecution case centering round the incident in question. The factual matrix appearing from the written statement of Mahanth Ram Rup Das (P.W. 12) and also the narrations made by the witnesses at trial was that at about 11.00 A.M. on 24th April, 1988 while a Panchayati was convened for resolution of the dispute between Yado Lal Sah and Sukhram Rai and the Panches were considering the rival claims of the parties, the appellants came alongwith others, pursuant to which on exhortation made by appellant No. 1 Ajay Singh, though intended to fire a shot, aim was lost. It was alleged that when Ajay Singh again wanted to take recourse to firing, he was apprehended by Punyadeo Singh and Yado Lal Sah pursuant to which he was rescued by appellants No. 2 and 3. It was Mahanth Ram Rup Das who set the criminal law in motion, pursuant to which the investigation commenced in course of which the police officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the Court. 3. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether sixteen witnesses including those who participated in Panchayati and also some witnesses who were not on material particular of the case. The State also examined some formal witnesses who brought some documents on the record. The defence too examined one witness for negativing assertions made by the prosecution about holding of Panchayati on the material date of incident. 4. The defence of the appellants was of total innocence and they ascribed their false implication at the instance of opposite party who was inimical and hostile to them. The trial Court, however, on consideration of evidences while rejecting the plea of innocence recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 5. 4. The defence of the appellants was of total innocence and they ascribed their false implication at the instance of opposite party who was inimical and hostile to them. The trial Court, however, on consideration of evidences while rejecting the plea of innocence recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 5. The thrust of the prosecution case emerging from the testimony of Ram Ayodhya Singh (P.W. 1), Girja Singh (P.W. 2), Sukhram Rai (P.W. 4), Deyali Ram (P.W. 6), Yado Lal Sah (P.W. 7), Punyadeo Narain Singh (P.W. 8), Pashupati Singh (P.W. 10) and Mahanth Ram Rup Das (P.W.12) was that on exhortation made by appellant No. 1 Yogendra Singh to assault Mahanth Ram Rup Das, Ajay Singh, who is not the appellant, intended to fire a shot though aim was lost. Shorn of unnecessary detail that has come in the evidence of the witnesses, I may confine to the narrations made by the witnesses about appellant No. 1 exhorting others for killing Mahanth Ram Rup Das, pursuant to which appellants No. 2 and 3 secured release of Ajay Singh from custody of Yado Lal Sah and Punyadeo Narain Singh and one may notice P.W. 1 only stating at trial to blow out the Mahanth. Similar had been the narration made by Girja Singh (P.W. 2) to blow out the Mahanth, otherwise he would get opportunity to be a Mukhiya. The narration made by Sukhram Rai (P.W.4) at trial was about appellant No. 1 Yogendra Singh, exhorting his son to assault mahanth. Deyali Ram (P.W. 6) states about appellant No. 1 exhorting others to blow out Mahanth with bullet. The narrations made by Yado Lal Sah (P.W. 7) was about appellant No. 1 asking his son to assault Mahanth. The narrations made by Punyadeo Narain Singh (P.W. 8) was similar to that of R Ws.. 1 and 2. Pashupati Singh (P.W. 10) states about appellant No. 1 asking his son to assault Mahanth. Mahanth Ram Rup Das (P.W.12), who was maker of first information report would, however, reiterate his earlier version about Yogendra Singh, appellant No. 1 asking his son to blow out Mahanth. 1 and 2. Pashupati Singh (P.W. 10) states about appellant No. 1 asking his son to assault Mahanth. Mahanth Ram Rup Das (P.W.12), who was maker of first information report would, however, reiterate his earlier version about Yogendra Singh, appellant No. 1 asking his son to blow out Mahanth. The person who intended to take recourse to firing, pursuant to exhortation made by Yogendra Singh was, however, not at trial, and that apart, even if the narrations made by wintesses were taken into consideration, that did not necessarily suggest that what was exhorted by appellant No. 1 was to execute killing of Mahanth Ram Rup Das. I, accordingly, find that the finding of guilt recorded against appellant No. 1 under Sections 307/144 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable and the finding on this score is, accordingly, set aside and appellant No. 1 Yogendra Singh is acquitted of the charges and is also discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 6. So far appellants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the witnesses have stated with sustained consistency about these two appellants having secured release of Ajay Singh from the custody of Yado Lal Sah and Punyadeo Narain Singh who put Ajay Singh in their custody when he wanted to take recourse to firing with firearm. Learned counsel for the appellants would fairly submit about consistent narrations made by the witnesses against them about they having released Ajay Singh from the custody of Yado Lal Sah and Punyadeo Narain Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants would draw my attention to the fact that the prosecution was launched against the appellants in the year, 1988 and since then more than a decade has elapsed. 7. Regard being had to the nature of accusations attributed to appellants No. 2 and 3 and the appellants having suffered ordeal of protracted litigation for about fourteen years, while upholding conviction against these two appellants, the sentence imposed against them is set aside and instead of that, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each, in default of which they would suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine is to be deposited with the trial Court within two months of the receipt/ production of this order and with these modification, the appeal partly succeeds.