S.K. SHARMA, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the above ten appellants against the judgment dated 7.8.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 1983 by which they have been convicted under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code but appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, appellants Nos. 2,4,5,6,7, 8 and 10 namely, Ghani Mian, Ahmed Mian, Mansoor Mian, Alauddin Mian, Manauer Mian, Yakub Mian and Adalat alias Khalifa have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and two accused namely, appellant No.3 Fariad Mian and appellant No. 9 Nafish Mian have been let off after due admonition giving the benefit of the provision of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The prosecution case relates to an occurrence dated 19.3.1983 at 7.00 A.M. On the said date and time, the appellants alongwith two others namely, Fateh Mian and Hasnain Mian variously armed with lathi, bamboos and paatis of Khatiya were ploughing the informant's land by tractor and on protest, the accused persons assaulted and informant and his family members. They also set fire to the thatched dwelling house of the informant in which household articles were destroyed. On hearing cry, the neighbours came and thereafter accused persons escaped. The informant Hafiz Mian (since dead) gave his fardbeyan which resulted in Mairwa P.S. Case No. 25 of 1983. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against 12 persons under Sections 147, 436 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter trial proceeded. Charge under sections 436/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the 12 accused persons. Charges were explained to them. They pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication and further that no such occurrence has occurred. Further defence was that land which was being ploughed belongs to the accused persons and the informant and his men had nothing to do with the same. 4. During trial two accused Fateh Mian and Hasnain Mian died and hence proceeding against them was dropped. 5 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. They are: P.W. 1 Md. 4. During trial two accused Fateh Mian and Hasnain Mian died and hence proceeding against them was dropped. 5 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. They are: P.W. 1 Md. Sharif Mian, P.W. 2 Muslim Mian, P.W. 3 Mahrun Nisha, P.W. 4 Kabulan Khatoon, P.W. 5 Amir Mirukar (Mian), P.W. 6 Kudrat Ansari, P.W.7 Dr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 8 Md. Khalil, P.W. 9 Harihar Nath Prasad, P.W. 10 Shiv Kumar Sharma and P.W. 10 Abdul Razzaque Ansari. 6. P.Ws. 9 and 11 are the formal witnesses. They have proved the F.I.R. and sale deed respectively. P.W. 8 though is a named witness but he has been declared hostile. The informant has died. So his evidence was not recorded. 7. P.W.1 is a co-villager of the accused. He in his evidence has state that seven years ago, he came to his field which was situated on some distance from the filed of Muslim and Hafiz. He saw 12 persons there. They were having lathi and other weapons. The tractor was ploughing the field of Hafiz Mian. He identified Fateh Mian, Rozadin Mian, Nafish Mian, Hasnain Mian (since dead), Ahmed Mian, Manuer Mian, Adalat, Gani, Yakub, Alauddin and Mansoor. This witness further stated in his evidence that the informant Hafiz Mian asked them as to why they were ploughing the field when the case was pending in the court. Then, Hafiz Mian was assauled by Rozadin, Hasnain, Monuer and Ghani Mian and when Muslim Mian went to rescue him, he was also assaulted by them. This witness further stated that the accused persons came to the house of the informant and accused Rozadin Mian took out a match-box and set fire the palanee of informant Hafiz Mian in which the palanees of informant and Muslim were burnt and the household articles were destroyed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this witness is not the eye witness of the occurrence. This witness in his evidence has stated that a title suit was going on between the parties and the judgment came in favour of the accused persons. It has also been submitted that this witness has been brought later on to prove the case. So the evidence of this witness cannot be relied. This witness in his evidence has stated that a title suit was going on between the parties and the judgment came in favour of the accused persons. It has also been submitted that this witness has been brought later on to prove the case. So the evidence of this witness cannot be relied. This witness has been examined as eye witness of the occurrence regarding assault but the accused persons have been acquitted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. So now remain the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. This witness has given the specific role of appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian only. So this witness is not reliable. 9. P.W. 2 is a chance witness. He has stated in his evidence that while he was going with rickshaw, he saw that the informant Hafiz Mian was being assaulted by the accused Fateh Mian (since dead), Ahmad Mian, Mansoor, Manuer, Ghani, Khalifa, Nafish, Rozadin, Yakub, Fariad, Hasnain (since dead) and Alauddin. This witness further stated that he went to rescue the informant, thereupon, he was also assaulted by Manuer, Mansoor and Ahmed Mian. This witness also stated that accused Rozadin Mian went near the house of informant and took out a match-box and set fire the palanee of informant. The palanee of informant and the palanee of this witness were burnt to ashes. This witness has also stated that there was land dispute between the parties. The evidence of this witness is consistent so far the allegation of burning the palanees are concerned which has been solely attributed to appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian. 10. P.W.3 Mahrun Nisha is widow of the informant and a natural witness. She is a house wife living inside the house. She has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, 12 persons were ploughing the field by tractor. She identified Fateh Mian (since dead), Rozadin Mian, Alauddin, Mansoor Mian, Munuer Ahmad, Nafish Mian Hasnain Mian (since dead), Yakub, Fariad, Khalifa and Ghani Miano They were having lathi and other weapons. This witness has stated that when she came out of house, she saw that the accused Fateh (since dead), Rozadin, Alauddin and Mansoor were assaulting her husband and when she went to rescue him, she was also assaulted by Ghani, Khalifa, Hasnain (since dead) and Yakub. This witness has stated that when she came out of house, she saw that the accused Fateh (since dead), Rozadin, Alauddin and Mansoor were assaulting her husband and when she went to rescue him, she was also assaulted by Ghani, Khalifa, Hasnain (since dead) and Yakub. She further stated that accused Rozadin Mian took out a match-box and set fire the palanee which burnt to ashes and the house-hold aritcles destroyed. 11. P.W4 Kabullan Khatoon is also a housewife. She has stated that on hulla, when she came out of her house, she saw that her husband Md. Muslim was being assaulted by the accused persons. She further stated that she saw that accused Rozadin Mian took out a match-box and set fire the palanee of informant and thereafter her palanee which was adjacent was also burnt to ashes and household articles were destroyed. 12. P.W. 5 Amir Mirukar and P.W. 6 Kudrat Ansari have reiterated the same version which has been given by P.W. 4. 13. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness has stated that he went to the place of occurrence on the alleged date of occurrence and had found that the thatched house of the informant and the house of P.W. 2 Muslim Mian were burnt. He also found ashes and also the burnt articles there. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it has come in evidence that there was land dispute and for that there was a title suit with regard to the P.O. land. The decree of the title suit was passed in favour of the accused persons which has not been controverted. Further argument is that the F.I.R. named witnesses have not been examined in this case and one witness who has been examined has been declared hostile. Further submission is that there was no seizure list of the articles which were destroyed after the palanee were burnt. 15. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that non-production of seizure list of articles does not falsify the prosecution version because the eye witnesses and other witnesses are consistent on the point that at the time of occurrence, the household articles were burnt and destroyed. He further submits that the judgment of the trial court is perfectly correct and requires no interference by this court. 16. He further submits that the judgment of the trial court is perfectly correct and requires no interference by this court. 16. From perusal of the entire evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that all the eye witnesses have stated that accused Rozadin Mian took out the match-box and set fire the palanee of the informant due to which the palanees of informant and of P.W. 2 Muslim Mian were burnt to ashes and the household articles were destroyed. The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined in detail but they remained intact saying that accused Rozadin Mian set fire the palanee. Taking into consideration all these, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Rozadin Mian, appellant No.1. So his conviction under the said section is maintained. 17. So far the allegation against the other appellants namely, appellant nos. 2 to 10 is concerned, there are contrary evidence. No overt act is attributed to them. The allegations of assault has already been disbelieved by the trial court and the trial court has already acquitted all the accused persons for the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration all these, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Nos. 2 to 10 and as such they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Since appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian has been found guilty under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, on the question of sentence, learned counsel for this appellant has submitted that some lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. Further submission is that the case is of the year 1983 and this appellant has remained in custody for some period during trial and after conviction. Lastly, it has been submitted that at the time of judgment i.e. in the year 1993, this appellant was 50 years of age. So, learned counsel prays that if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by this appellant, that may be sufficient for the ends of justice. 19. Lastly, it has been submitted that at the time of judgment i.e. in the year 1993, this appellant was 50 years of age. So, learned counsel prays that if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by this appellant, that may be sufficient for the ends of justice. 19. I am in full agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel. Accordingly, the sentence of appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian is reduced to the period already undergone by him which will be sufficient for the ends of justice. 20. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence so far it relates to appellant No.1 Rozadin Mian and appeal so far it relates to appellant Nos. 2 to 10 namely, Ghani Mian, Fariad Mian, Ahmad Mian, Mansoor Mian, Alauddin Mian, Manawar Mian alias Manauer Mian, Yakub Mian, Nafish Mian and Adalat alias Khalifa, is allowed. Appellant Nos. 2 to 10 are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.