JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.12.1999, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 3/146 of 1991/1999 arising out of Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 163/1989. Seven accused persons have been found guilty under Section 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each. 2. This case arises out of Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 163 of 1989 which is a counter case to Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 162/1989. There were eight accused persons in Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 162/1989 who were sentenced under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for ten years. The accused had filed Cr. Appeal Nos. 3/2000, 16/2000 and 56/2000 before this Court which was heard and dismissed on 10.7.2012 with the modification of sentence and a direction that the appellant Aas Mohammad Ansari of Cr. Appeal No. 3/2000 should pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the heirs of Lali Mian who had died during the occurrence. 3. In the present appeal the prosecution case is that on 13.7.1989 Idrish Ansari, the father of the informant went to the field situated in the western corner of the village. There was a dispute with respect to flow of water. Barphati Ansari and Ishaq Ansari assaulted the father of the informant Idrish Ansari by Lathi. It is also alleged that Saukat Ansari and Asrafuddin Ansari gave Bhala blows on the head of the informant which caused bleeding injuries. Ishaq Ansari, Mustafa Ansari, Saukat Ansari, Mustaquim Ansari and Asraphu Ansari assaulted Israil Ansari by Lathi. Haidar Ansari was assaulted by Saukat Ansari on the head. Murtuza Ansari assaulted Muslim Ansari. It is also alleged that Saukat Ansari assaulted Sahiban Bibi during the occurrence. 4. At the outset it may be stated that the occurrence is admitted as both the parties have accepted that there was a case and counter case which is admited by the parties during their evidence. 5. The doctor who has been examined as P.W. 9 has supported the allegation of assault as made out in the First Information Report in Court. It would appear that Muslim Ansari, Haidar Ansari, Israil Ansari, Shaheedan Bibi, Kaimuddin Ansari and Idrish Ansari were examined by the doctor. 5. The doctor who has been examined as P.W. 9 has supported the allegation of assault as made out in the First Information Report in Court. It would appear that Muslim Ansari, Haidar Ansari, Israil Ansari, Shaheedan Bibi, Kaimuddin Ansari and Idrish Ansari were examined by the doctor. Out of the injured persons he found that Shaheedan Bibi, Kaimuddin Ansari and Idrish Ansari had received grievous injuries as these persons had fractured their hand or the skull. The others had received simple injuries in this case. 6. It is also admitted by the parties that apart from the immediate cause of occurrence was with respect to flow of water. The evidence reveals that there was a dispute between the parties with respect to a piece of land which has been recorded as a ‘Kabristan’ in the consolidation proceedings, therefore, the enmity between the parties has been established. 7. P.W. 10 who is the Investigating Officer of this case has inspected the place of occurrence which is situated in Muslim Tola of village Sonhan which is near a mosque. He has supported the fact that the accused were injured when they were arrested and also admits that Ashraphu Ansari had filed counter case numbered as Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 162/1989. The evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 in this case is not of much importance in view of the fact that they have merely stated that the occurrence had taken place but have not been able to give details regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place. 8. P.W. 4, Qyamuddin Ansari is the informant of this case and he has supported the prosecution case as made out by him in the First Information Report. This witness also admits the injury of Lali Miyan who was injured in the counter case. The evidence of this witness regarding the occurrence cannot be disregarded or discredited as it is supported by the evidence of the injured witnesses. All the injured witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have supported the prosecution version and admit that there was between the parties. The only difference in the evidence is that the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2000 and analogous cases state that it was the appellants of this case who had initiated the fight, while the present appellants have laid the blame squarely on the accused in the counter case. The only difference in the evidence is that the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2000 and analogous cases state that it was the appellants of this case who had initiated the fight, while the present appellants have laid the blame squarely on the accused in the counter case. This Court, therefore, finds that there is no illegality in the reasoning or the judgment of the Trial Court when it comes to the conclusion that the occurrence took place in the manner as described in the First Information Report. 9. The occurrence is of the year 1989. All the appellants have remained in jail for at least 4½ months during pendency of the trial and appeal. This Court finds that 22 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence and it would, therefore, not be fair to send the appellants back to jail in this case. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal by altering the sentence to period already undergone with a further direction that the appellants should deposit a fine of Rs. 100/- each in the Trial Court within a period of four months and a compensation amount of Rs. 400/- to be paid to the injured persons i.e. Muslim Ansari, Haidar Ansari, Israil Ansari, Shaheedan Bibi @ Sahiban Bibi, Kaimuddin Ansari and Idrish Ansari in equal proportion. Failure to pay the said amount would lead to simple imprisonment for four months. The appellants will be discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds on payment of the said fine and compensation. Notices may be issued to the informant to collect the compensation from the Court. The web copy of this judgment may be utilized by the appellants so that the Trial Court may accept the fine and compensation amount.