JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially there were four petitioners in the present case but at the time of admission itself, the present revision application as far as the petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, was dismissed whereas with regard to petitioners no. 1 and 4, the same was admitted to hearing on the question of sentence. 3. During the pendency of this revision application the petitioner no. 1 had died and thus the revision is now restricted only to petitioner no. 4. Learned counsel submits that the only allegation against the petitioner no. 4 is that he also fired but there has not been any injury to anybody caused by the said firing. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid both the trial court as well as the appellate court had failed to consider that benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioner no. 4 and thus the order of conviction and sentence is erroneous both on facts as well as in law. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner no. 4 and after going through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction. However, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties.