JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.- The present appeal has been field against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1997 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- (i) All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 147 of the IPC. (ii) Appellant no. 2 Dudhnath Rai has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and he has further been convicted under Sections 324 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years on each count. (iii) Appellant no. 1 Paramhansh Rai and Appellant no. 3 Sipahi Rai have further been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 IPC and R.I. for two years under Section 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of P.W.-7 Dhanji Rai, whose oral statement was recorded on 1.12.1996 at 8.30 a.m. at Rajpur Police Station by Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N. Singh regarding an incident which had taken place on the same day at about 6 a.m., on the basis of which Nasriganj (Rajpur) P.S. Case No. 217 dated 1.12.1996 was registered under Section 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and two others, namely, Aashi Rai and Bhuer Rai and investigation was taken up. 3. It has been alleged in the fardbeyan that on the relevant date and time of occurrence while the informant went out to urinate, he found that some unknown person had uprooted his pumpkin plant. On seeing this, he raised hulla and used abusive words without indicating anyone’s name. This caused annoyance to the accused persons including the appellants. 4. It has further been alleged that appellant no. 3, Sipahi Rai armed with Lathi, Appellant no. 2, Dudhnath Rai, armed with tangi, appellant no. 1, Paramhansh Rai, and two other co-accused Aashi Rai and Bhuer Rai being variously armed with Lathi formed an unlawful assembly and surrounded the informant and his three brothers, who were also present at the “Dalan” of the house. Appellant no. 3, Sipahi Rai armed with Lathi, Appellant no. 2, Dudhnath Rai, armed with tangi, appellant no. 1, Paramhansh Rai, and two other co-accused Aashi Rai and Bhuer Rai being variously armed with Lathi formed an unlawful assembly and surrounded the informant and his three brothers, who were also present at the “Dalan” of the house. Appellant no. 3 Sipahi Rai inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Ram Bachan Rai, brother of the informant. Appellant no.2 Dudhnath Rai struck with “Tangi” on the head of Depty Rai, another brother of the informant, who fell down and when the informant rushed to rescue him, appellant no. 1, Paramhansh Rai, assaulted with lathi on the head of the informant causing injury to him. Co-accused Aashi Rai is alleged to have assaulted with Lathi to the informant and co-accused Bhuer Rai is alleged to have assaulted with Lathi to Depty Rai causing injury to them. 5. It has further been alleged that appellant no. 1 Paramhansh Rai also assaulted Ram Nath Rai and Ram Bachan Rai, the two brothers of the informant, with lathi. The motive attributed for the occurrence is said to be an ongoing dispute relating to irrigation of land between the parties. 6. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted here that since co-accused Aashi Rai and Bhuer Rai were minors at the time of occurrence, their trial was separated. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after complying with the provisions prescribed under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 147and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three appellants. Appellant no. 2 Dudhnath Rai was further charged under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants did not plead guilty to the charges and, thus, the trial commenced. 7. In course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-7 Dhanji Rai is the informant as well as one of the injured in the case. His three brothers, namely, Ram Bachan Rai, Ram Nath Rai and Depty Rai were also assaulted by the accused. They have been examined as P.Ws. 7. In course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-7 Dhanji Rai is the informant as well as one of the injured in the case. His three brothers, namely, Ram Bachan Rai, Ram Nath Rai and Depty Rai were also assaulted by the accused. They have been examined as P.Ws. - 3, 5 & 6 respectively in course of trial. 8. P.W.-1 Ram Nath Rai, P.W.-2 Nathuni Rai and P.W.-4 Ram Naresh Rai are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-8 N.P. Singh, an A.S.I. of police is the investigating officer of the case and P.W.-9 Dr. Kumar Mahendra Pratap Singh is the doctor who examined the injured witnesses and issued their respective injury reports. 9. Apart from the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, several documents were also brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, which have been marked as Exhibits. Exhibit-1 is signature of the informant on the fardbeyan, Ext.-2 to 2/3 are the requisitions dated 1.12.1996 issued under the signature of the Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rajpur for examining the injured members of the prosecution party and issuing their respective injury reports, Ext-3 is the fardbeyan of the informant, Ext-4 is formal F.I.R., Ext.-5 is the endorsement dated 1.12.1996 made by one Shamim Akhtar, Officer-in-Charge-cum-Sub-Inspector of Police by which P.W.-8 N.P. Singh has been appointed Investigating Officer of the case, Ext.-6 is the X-ray report of the informant, Dhanji Rai, Ext.-7 and 7/1 are the injury report and supplementary injury report regarding injuries of Dhanji Rai, the informant, Ext.-7/2 and 7/3 are the injury reports of the injured Ram Nath Rai (P.W.-5) and Ram Bachan Rai (P.W.-3), Ext.-7/4 and 7/5 are injury report and supplementary injury report of injured Depty Rai (P.W.-6), Ext.-6/1 is the X-ray report relating to the injured Depty Rai, Ext.-8 is certified copy of the deposition of the appellant no. 1 Paramhansh Rai in Complaint Case No. 358 of 1996. 10. The informant, Dhanji Rai (P.W.-7) as well as his three brothers, namely Ram Bachan Rai (P.W.-3), Ram Nath Rai (P.W.-5) and Depty Rai (P.W.-6) have fully corroborated the allegation made in the F.I.R. Their evidence further finds support from the deposition of P.W.-1 Ram Nath Rai, P.W.-2 Nathuni Rai and P.W.-4 Ram Naresh Rai, who are all eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 11. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 1.12.1996, P.W.-9 Dr. 11. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 1.12.1996, P.W.-9 Dr. Kumar Mahendra Pratap was posted at Primary Health Centre, Rajpur as Medical Officer and on that day, he examined Dhanji Rai (P.W.-7) at 9.15 a.m., Ram Nath Rai (P.W.-5) at 9.30 a.m., Ram Bachan Rai (P.W.-3) at 9 a.m. and Depty Rai (P.W.-6) at 8.40 a.m. and found the following injuries on their person:- (a) Injury report of Dhanji Rai. (i) Lacerated wound 2 ½” x ¼” bone deep right parietal area of skull. (ii) Bruise and swelling 3” x 1” right shoulder with erythema. Both the injuries were within three hours caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Opinion with respect to injury no. 1 was kept reserved. However, injury no. 2 was found to be simple in nature. In the supplementary injury report of Dhanji Rai issued on 3.12.1996 after receipt of x-ray report the doctor opined that no bony abnormality was seen in the skull and thus injury no. 1 was also simple in nature. (b) Injury report of Ram Nath Rai:- (i) Lacerated wound 1” x ¼” muscle deep right parietal area of skull. (ii) Lacerated wound ¼” x 1/6” muscle deep at tip of right hand thumb. (iii) Bruise and swelling 3” x 1” left thigh with erythema. (iv) Bruise and swelling 1” x ½” left leg knee. The doctor opined the age of injury to be within three hours and all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature. (c) Injury report of Ram Bachan Rai:- (i) Lacerated wound 1 ½” x ¼” muscle deep on right parietal area of skull. (ii) Bruise and swelling 3” x 1” on right thigh. According to the doctor, the injuries were caused within three hours by hard and blunt substance and both the injuries were simple in nature. (d) Injury report of Depty Rai:- (i) Incised wound 2 ½” x ¼” bone deep left front parietal area of skull. (ii) Incised wound 2” x 1/6” muscle deep left hand index finger. (iii) Bruise and swelling 3” x ½” on right hand arm. (iv) Bruise and swelling 3” x 1” on left shoulder with erythema. (v) Bruise and swelling 4” x 1” on right thigh with erythema. (ii) Incised wound 2” x 1/6” muscle deep left hand index finger. (iii) Bruise and swelling 3” x ½” on right hand arm. (iv) Bruise and swelling 3” x 1” on left shoulder with erythema. (v) Bruise and swelling 4” x 1” on right thigh with erythema. According to the doctor, the injuries were caused within three hours and injury No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas injury Nos. 3 to 5 were caused by hard and blunt substance. In the initial report injury no. 2 to 5 were found to be simple. However, opinion with regard to injury no. 1 was kept reserved till receipt of x-ray report. In the supplementary injury report issued by the doctor on 3.12.1996 after the receipt of x-ray since no bony abnormality was detected injury no. 1 was also reported to be simple in nature. 12. All the injuries found on the person of the injured witnesses were simple in nature. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony of the witnesses. The doctor has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing relevant could be taken out from him to doubt the prosecution version. 13. The Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.-8 in the present case, has stated in his deposition that on the date of occurrence itself, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station handed over the investigation of the case to him. He examined the injured witnesses and referred them immediately to the Government Hospital, Rajpur. He has proved the requisitions sent to the Medical Officer which has been marked as Ext.-2 series. He further states that he recorded the further statement of the informant and injured witnesses in the hospital, inspected the place of occurrence, received the injury reports, X-ray plate and X-ray reports and on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet in the case. He has been cross-examined at length but the defence has failed to point out any contradiction in the deposition of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. 14. Under such circumstances, the trial court on appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner set out in para-1 of the judgment. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was admitted land dispute between the parties. 14. Under such circumstances, the trial court on appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner set out in para-1 of the judgment. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was admitted land dispute between the parties. The motive for the occurrence has been given in the fardbeyan itself and it has been alleged that there was dispute existing between the parties over irrigation of land. He further submits that there is a counter version too. A counter case in the form of complaint was instituted by the appellant no. 1 Paramhansh Rai. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath and conducting inquiry in the complaint took cognizance of the offence and summoned the members of the prosecution party to face trial. He refers to Ext.-8 which has been brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, which is certified copy of his deposition recorded in the said complaint case before charge. Referring to Ext.-8, it is submitted that the appellant no. 1 in his deposition stated that it was the members of the prosecution party who were aggressor. They assaulted him but when he went to police, his case was not registered and, therefore, he had to institute complaint case. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the complaint petition with respect to Complaint Case No. 358 of 1996 instituted by the appellant no. 1 against the informant and his three injured brothers Depty Rai, Ram Nath Rai and Ram Bachan Rai has also been brought on record by the complainant which has been marked as Ext-A in course of trial. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that it is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution have supported the prosecution version during trial. The injury reports issued by the doctor also corroborates the oral testimony of the witnesses. He concedes that the finding of trial court regarding guilt of the appellants is based on evidence on record which can neither be called perverse nor illegal. However, he submits that the case may be viewed with another angle too on the question of sentence. 18. Learned counsel advancing his argument submits that he would confine his submission merely on question of sentence. He submits that there is admitted dispute existing between the parties from before. However, he submits that the case may be viewed with another angle too on the question of sentence. 18. Learned counsel advancing his argument submits that he would confine his submission merely on question of sentence. He submits that there is admitted dispute existing between the parties from before. A counter case in the nature of complaint was also filed in the court and the court has taken cognizance of the offence in which the members of the prosecution party are aggressors. The motive alleged for the occurrence is trivial in nature. The occurrence is of the year 1996. The appellants are co-villagers. The judgment in the case was passed by the trial court in March, 1999 and at that time, appellants were aged about 45 years, 50 years and 52 years respectively. As on date, they are aged about 58 years, 63 years and 65 years respectively. By now, the parties have reconciled their difference and are living peacefully in the same village. 19. He further submits that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the appellants to custody again at this belated stage. 20. It has also been submitted that initially appellant no. 1 Paramhansh Rai and appellant no. 3 Sipahi Rai had surrendered on 18.12.1996 in the case and they were released by order dated 23.12.1996. Similarly, appellant no. 2 Dudhnath Rai had surrendered on 6.1.1997 and was released on bail on 9.1.1997. Thus, they have remained in custody for some days. 21. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned, on appreciation of evidence on record, I am in full agreement with the finding recorded by the trial court. 22. However, when I come to the question of sentence, I find that the appellants are sufficiently aged persons. They have undergone ordeal of trial for a long period. Their appeal remained pending for over a decade. They have also remained in custody for few days during investigation. There is no past conviction recorded against them. They are neighbours and co-villagers of the members of the prosecution party. The injuries found on the person of the informant and witnesses were all simple in nature. Taking into consideration all these aspects while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone in custody. There is no past conviction recorded against them. They are neighbours and co-villagers of the members of the prosecution party. The injuries found on the person of the informant and witnesses were all simple in nature. Taking into consideration all these aspects while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 23. With these modifications in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.