Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This appeal was initially filed by the 13 appellants against the judgment and order dated 8.12.1992 passed by Sri Dhirendra Nath Chakravarty, the then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 399/65 of 1986/88, arising out of Rajaun P.S. Case No. 130 of 1984. By the aforesaid judgment and order whereas all the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sec.302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. they have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years under Sec.326 read with Sec.149 I.P.C. and that apart accused Jaldhar Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of offence punishable under Sec.147 I.P.C. and all the convicts except Jaldhar Yadav have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for commission of offence punishable under Sec.148 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and no separate sentences were awarded for the accused being convicted also of the charges under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. 2. It will not be out of place to mention here that appellant no. 5 Mukund Lal Rao and appellant no. 13 Kirani Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal before the Court and by order dated 9.5.2007 the proceedings in respect of the two deceased was dropped. 3. At the very out set the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they were restricting their arguments only on the question of sentence and would not advance any submissions in respect of the merit of the appeal. 4. It is the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellants that the original case being of the year 1984, the Sessions Trial of the year 1986 and the impugned judgment and order being of the year 1992 no gainful purpose would be served by directing the appellants to go back to the prison to serve out their sentences. 5. Admittedly as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants the original case is of the year 1984 which means that the appellants herein have been suffering criminal proceeding mentally and physically for the past 23 years and presumably have also had to suffer on the financial front. No gainful purpose would be served in directing the appellants to go back for serving out the remaining part of their sentence. 6. No gainful purpose would be served in directing the appellants to go back for serving out the remaining part of their sentence. 6. Accordingly in these circumstances I am of the opinion that the ends of the justice will be served if the period of sentence is modified to one already undergone by them. 7. In the result the appeal is didmissed with modification in the sentence. All the appellants are on bail granted by this Court vide order dated 22.12.1992. Each of them, is accordingly discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.