JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.:- Heard both the parties. All these revision petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The fact of the case in short is that informant, Musafir Paswan had gone near Peter Machine of Harihar Paswan to request him for irrigation of his sugar crop. His request was protested by co-accused Karu Paswan that he would not allow to irrigate informant’s field from river water and some altercation took place in between Karu Paswan and informant. On threatening and after abuse of Karu Paswan, informant ran away from there and reached near his house. In the meantime, all the accused named in the fardbeyan reached armed with gun, lathi and garasa came near the house of the informant. Co-accused Harihar Paswan ordered to kill. Thereafter, firing was shot by Karu paswan, Surendra Paswan, Ramashish Paswan injuring Kavinder Paswan, Kamlesh, Siban Paswan, Ramkali Devi and Sampati Devi. On alarm, witnesses came there. Thereafter, accused persons left the place of occurrence. After the trial, they have been convicted by Assistant Sessions Judge which is affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, to challenge the conviction as well as quantum of sentence, these revision applications have been filed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out infirmities in reaching the conviction and accordingly, passing the sentence but ultimately came to sentence only and he submitted that if the period undergone by them followed by years they faced the agony of prosecution is taken into consideration for giving him adequate relief he would give up petitioners’ claim over insisting to challenge the conviction. Petitioner, Surendra Paswan in Cr. Revision No. 1043 of 2008 has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, while petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 554 of 2008 and Cr. Revision No. 1210 of 2008 have been convicted for the offence under Section 307/149 of the I.P.C. Surendra Paswan has been convicted for rigours imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, while rest of the petitioners have been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for five years. For Surendra Paswan, it is said that he remained in custody from 26.06.1987 to 19.08.1988 in course of trial and again since 16.04.2008 till today, while rest of the petitioners remained in custody from 16.06.1987 to 20.06.1987 and in course of revision Kameshwar from 21.02.2008 to 10.11.2008, rest two Upendra and Siya Saran Paswan from 21.02.2008 to 27.08.2008. All the cases are of the year 1987. So, twenty-two years elapsed since petitioners are facing the trial. The Judgment was passed after concluding the trial on 08.06.1992 and at that time, Siya Saran Paswan was 55 years, Kameshwar Paswan was 45 years, Upendra Paswan was 26 years and Surendra Paswan was 30 years. I am also of the opinion that above discussed circumstances justify some liberty to the petitioners. So, the period undergone by them is observed sufficient towards their sentence. As such the Judgment and order passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in connection with Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1987/39 of 1988 as well as the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Cr. Appeal No. 64 of 1992 are modified to that extent, while that is affirmed for conviction. Petitioner, Surendra Paswan in Cr. Misc. No. 1043 of 2008 is directed to be released forthwith. Accordingly, these revision applications are disposed of. Let the Judgment be communicated through F.A.X. at the cost of the petitioners in connection with Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1987/39 of 1988 in the Court of 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif (Cr. Appeal No. 64 of 1992).