Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The prosecution was launched on behest of Jugeshwar Yadav with accusation that on 7th April, 1987 while he was fast asleep in his house, Parma Sah, one of the petitioners along with two others came, and when Jugeshwar questioned them for coming at dead of night, on exhortation made by Parma Sah, Dukhan Sah and Shankar Sah who had accompanied him, dealt fists blow on him. It was alleged that when Nunu Babu, Chandrashekhar and Ram Bhajan Yadav came for rescue of Jugeshwar Yadav, they too were subjected to assault and accusations against them are that while Janardan Yadav dealt blows on head of Nunu Babu, Natho Yadav dealt blows on Chandrashekhar with axe. Accusation against Dukhan Yadav and Shankar Sah was about assaulting Jugeshwar Yadav by fists and slaps, and similarly, accusation against Bindeshwari Yadav was about assaulting Ram Bhajan with iron rod on left leg. 2. At trial, the State examined altogether 8 witnesses and also placed on record, some documents suggesting land dispute persisting between the parties. The defence too placed on the record Ext.A, certified copy of parcha to suggest land dispute between the parties, and the trial court on appreciation of evidences placed on the record, recorded finding of guilt finding petitioners guilty of the charges under Sections 448, 323 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and while on first and second count they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four months on each count, on third count, they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The aggrieved petitioners preferred Cr.Appeal No. 116 of 1997 and the appellate court too while upholding finding recorded by the trial court, dismissed the appeal. The revisions have been admitted at the time of admission, only on the question of sentence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge that even though instant case was off shoot of land dispute between the parties which would be quite explicit from Ext.A, the trial court notwithstanding land dispute between the parties rushed to erroneous conclusion about guilt of the petitioners. It has been brought to my notice that while Janardan Yadav remained in custody for 53 days, Mana Yadav remained in custody for about 28 days. It has been brought to my notice that while Janardan Yadav remained in custody for 53 days, Mana Yadav remained in custody for about 28 days. About Bindeshwari Yadav and Natho Yadav it is urged that they remained in custody for 51 days and Parma Sah and Shankar Sah too remained in custody for 20 days. 4. Since prosecution was launched against the petitioners in the year 1987, and more than a decade has elapsed, and it is not in dispute that the parties had been on litigating term for some piece of land, regard being had to the nature of accusation which appears to be off shoot of the land dispute and custody of petitioners for some period, sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them and all the three revisions are accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.