JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the Appellants. Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the State. 3. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and further convicted Under Section 323 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 4. The prosecution case is that on 13.06.1988 at about 4 P.M. the Appellants came armed with lathi and began to destroy and demolish the house of the informant which was meant for keeping Bhusa, Hal, Kudal, Grain and was used as cattle shed and all the accused persons began to assault him with fist and slaps. It is said that the motive behind the occurrence is that accused had contested a proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the same land and proceeding under Section 145 ended in favour of the informant. 5. The case proceeded on complaint by lodging FIR under Section 156(B) Code of Criminal Procedure on investigation trial proceeded but cognizance taken on protest petition treating as complaint. 5. The learned amicus curiae, however, contended that there are material contradiction in the evidence of witness and the remained of burnt has not been adduced in evidence by I.O. and though there is allegation of assault but no injury on the informant has been found and hence the prosecution has not proved charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The case proceeded on complaint so nor examination of the I.O. is not of much significant and hence I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of conviction. On perusal of record the contradiction pointed out does not go to the roof the prosecution case to disturb the finding. 7. 6. The case proceeded on complaint so nor examination of the I.O. is not of much significant and hence I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of conviction. On perusal of record the contradiction pointed out does not go to the roof the prosecution case to disturb the finding. 7. However, so far the sentence is concerned the occurrence is of the year 1988 and more than 22 years have elapsed and age of the Appellant are 35 to 55 years at the time of conviction and 15 years have already elapsed and the Appellants remanded in jail from the date of order of conviction till they were granted bail in appeal before the Honble High Court and end of justice shall meet by sentence the Appellants for period already undergone after conviction till there release on bail. 8. Hence, with the modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed.