Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise from the same common order and Judgment, Both these appeals, for the sake of convenience, have been taken up together and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.03 passed by Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Ad hoc Sessions Judge-cum-presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 269/2 of 1988/2001 arising out of Siwan Mufassal P.S. Case No. 36 of 1976. 3. The prosecution case can be culled out from the fard beyan given by one Jagarnath Chaudhary of Village -Mahuari paschimwari Tola to the Sub-Inspector of Mufassil P.S. which was in respect of the murder of one Ramashray Chaudhary and 23 persons including the appellants were made to figure as accused. It is said that at around 10.30 A.M. on 22.5.1976 while Ramashray Chaudhary in the company of Doma Chaudhary, Motilal Prasad, Shiv Shankar Bhagat, Harilal Bhagat and Chandeshwar Bhagat was engaged in building a Palani, Indradeo Bhagat armed with farsa, Baldeo Bhagat, Chandeshwar Bhagat, Jag Narayan Bhagat, Chandradeo Chaudhary, Rajeshwar Koeri, Dhrup Chaudhary, Kapil Chaudhary, Mohan Nonia, Pundeo Chaudhary, Manager Koeri, Thakur Bhagat and Indradeo Chaudhary armed with bhala, Hoshiyar Bhagat and Shyama Chaudhary armed with pistol, Raghunath Bhagat, Islok Bhagat, Harni Bhagat, Chandrika Bhagat, Mishri Bhagat, Ramdeo Koeri, Raghunath Bhagat and Awadhesh Koeri armed with lathi arrived and Manager Koeri, Indradeo and Thakur asked Ramashray as to why he was building the palani on the road and prohibited him from doing further construction. However, as Ramashray did not stop on the order of Thakur Koeri to assault Ramashray, Raghunath Bhagat and Chandeshwar Bhagat gave farsa blow on the chest of Ramaahray as a result of which Ramashray fell dawn and as Jagarnath Chaudhary and Doma Chaudhary rushed to save Ramashray they were assaulted by Indradeo Chaudhary and Manager by bhala. It is further said that on the informant raising hulla his son came rushing but. he was also assaulted by Rajeshwar Bhagat, Ramdeo Koeri and (sic). It is further alleged that Moti Lal Chaudhary was assaulted by Dhrup Chaudhary on the head with farsa, Sheo Shankar was assaulted by Baldeo Bhagat and Harilal Bhagat was assaulted by Thakur Bhagat. Some others are also alleged to have sustained injuries. 4. he was also assaulted by Rajeshwar Bhagat, Ramdeo Koeri and (sic). It is further alleged that Moti Lal Chaudhary was assaulted by Dhrup Chaudhary on the head with farsa, Sheo Shankar was assaulted by Baldeo Bhagat and Harilal Bhagat was assaulted by Thakur Bhagat. Some others are also alleged to have sustained injuries. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid fard beyan of Jagarnath Chaudhary Siwan Mufassil P.S. Case No. 36/76 was registered The police after die investigation submitted a chargesheet only against 22 persons leaving out Islok Koeri under Sections 148, 302, 307 and other minor provisions of the Penal Code. It appears that before the trial could be taken up by the Sessions court accused Raghunath Bhagat, Haruni Bhagat, Hosiar Bhagat, Kundeo Bhagat, Awadhesh Koeri and Mishri Bhagat were reported to have died. 5. Accordingly at the trial before the Sessions court charges under various heads were framed against the remaining 16 accused and as will appear during the pendency of the trial Manager Koeri, Chandradeo Chaudhary and Indradeo Chaudhary also expired and as such the trial proceeded only against 13 accused. It appears that all the accused were charged under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Chandeshwar Bhagat and Raghunath Bhagat were also charged under Sec.302 of the I.P.C. Indradeo Bhagat, Rajeshwar Singh and Baldeo Bhagat were also charged under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sec.324 of I.P.C. Raghunath Bhagat and Thakur Bhagat were further charged under Sec.324 of the I.P.C 6. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and also Brought on record several documents as exhibits. 7. The defence plea is one of innocence and false implication and formal F.I.R. of Siwan Mufassil P.S. Case No. 37 of 197.6 was filed as an Ext. 8. After considering the materials available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties of all the appellants were found guilty under several heads and sentenced to several terms of rigorous imprisonment. 9. In the appeal before this Court the defence reiterated its plea of innocence and false implication. 8. After considering the materials available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties of all the appellants were found guilty under several heads and sentenced to several terms of rigorous imprisonment. 9. In the appeal before this Court the defence reiterated its plea of innocence and false implication. It was sought to be submitted that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution story getting corroborative support of interested and partisan witnesses who were directly or indirectly associated with the informant no reliance could be placed on such testimony and the learned Trial Judge had erred in placing reliance on the same. It was also submitted that the court below had erred in not considering the fact that this case also had a counter case and that there existed enmity between the parties over land related dispute. Grievance was also raised die to non-examination of the I.O. 10. I have perused the materials available on record with the help of the learned Counsels for the parties. The fact of Ramashray Chaudharys death is not in dispute. The manner of the occurrence leading to the death of Ramashray Chaudhary has been supported by the informant, Jagarnath Chaudhary as also Motilal Koeri (P.W.I), Sheo Shankar Singh (P.W.4), Doma Chaudhary (P.W.5), Chandeshwar Chaudhary (P.W.2) all of whom were helping Ramashray in building the palani and were eye witness to the occurrence. To that extent their evidence must be held to be of enough corroborative value and was sufficient for establishing the guilt of the appellants. No contradiction whatsoever was pointed out from their evidence which suggests that they gave consistent account of the occurrence both before the police as also before the Court. 11. In the above premises I have no hesitation in holding, inagreement with the trial court, that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants conviction was fully justified. 12. The trial court had found accused Chandeshwar Bhagat @ Chandeshwar Singh guilty of the offence under Sections 148, 304 (part II) 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. and had accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default whereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 12. The trial court had found accused Chandeshwar Bhagat @ Chandeshwar Singh guilty of the offence under Sections 148, 304 (part II) 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. and had accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default whereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence under Sec.302 (part II)it had further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Sections 148, 324 and 323 of I.P.C, with all the sentences running can currently. Accused Indradeo Bhagat, Raghunath Bhagat @ Raghunath Singh, Jag Narain Bhagat @ Jag Narain Singh, Thakur Bhagat, Kapildeo Chaudhary, Mohan Nonia, Baldeo Bhagat @ Baldeo Singh, Ramdeo Bhagat @ Ramdeo Singh, Chandrika Bhagat @ Chandrika Singh, Dhrup Chaudhary, Shyama Chaudhary Shama Bhagat, Rajeshwar Bhagat @ Rajeshwar Koeri were found guilty of the offence under Sections 148, 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year on each count with further direction for the sentence to run concurrently. 13. It may be noted that during the pendency of the appeal two of the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 525/03, namely, Indradeo Bhagat and Shyama Bhagat @ Shama Bhagat were reported to be dead and the proceedings so far as they are concerened was dropped vide order dated 16.3.2007 and the appeal was pursued by the remaining 9 appellants. It appears that these appellants of Cr.Appeal No. 525/03 were taken into custody on 4.11.2003 after their bail bonds had been cancelled It appears that all the 11 appellants of Cr.Appeal No. 225/03 including the deceased appellants, Indradeo Bhagat and Syama Chaudhary @ Shama Chaudhary were enlarged on bail by this Court while admitting the appeal vide order dated 15.12.03. But the prayer for bail so far as the appellant, Chandeshwar Bhagat @ Chandeshwar Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2004 was rejected vide order dated 23.2.2004. He has been in custody for about 31/2 years. It appears that on the date of Judgment appellant Chandeshwar Bhagat was aged 70 years which would mean that he is now around 74 years of age. 14. Appeal No. 20 of 2004 was rejected vide order dated 23.2.2004. He has been in custody for about 31/2 years. It appears that on the date of Judgment appellant Chandeshwar Bhagat was aged 70 years which would mean that he is now around 74 years of age. 14. The case was initially registered in the year 1976 and the Sessions Trial was of the year 1988 which would mean that all the appellants have suffered the or dial of criminal prosecution and harassment for a period of almost 31 years in all. 15. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the or dial and harassment faced by the appellants for about 31 years I am of the opinion that they should be sentenced to the period already undergone and with this modification in the order of sentence these appeals are dismissed. The appellants of Cri.Appeal No. 525/03 who by order of this Court were directed to be released on bail are discharged from the liabilities of their back respective bailbonds. So far as appellant Chandeshwar Bhagat alias Chandeshwar Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2004 is concerned he too is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case (sic)