JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The appellant no. 1, Pragas Raut, has been convicted under Section 324 of the Penal Code and the appellants 2 and 3, Ram Jiwan Raut and Ramautar Raut, have been convicted under Section 324/34 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 324 of the Penal Code and for two years for offence under Section 324/34 of the Penal Code. However, the benefit of Section 360 of the Probation of Offenders Act has not been provided. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged that the occurrence took place with regard to cutting of the bamboo and it was objected by the informant and it is alleged that Pragas Raut gave a spade blow on the head of the informant causing bleeding injury and the occurrence took place due to pattedari land dispute. 4. However, during the trial the witnesses supported the prosecution case, but, the doctor who examined the victim was not examined. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence, facts and circusmtances convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the appellants Ram Jiwan Raut and Ramautar Raut were aged about 60 and 65 years respectively at the time of judgment on 19 th April, 199, and now they have cross 70 and 75 years and, hence, a lenient view may be taken. 6. Having regard to the facts that the occurrence took place with regard to the cutting of the bamboo and the land dispute and the parties are descendent of the common ancestor and the occurrence is of the year 1994 and, further, the age of appellants 2 and 3 was 60 and 65 years in the year 1999 and, since, they suffered the rigour of protracted litigation and they remained in jail for some time, hence, the ends of justice shall meet by sentencing them for the period already undergone. 7. With these observations and directions, this appeal is dismissed.