JUDGMENT A.K. Trivedi, J. Ram Surat Choudhary happens to be the sole petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 97/2013 whereas Paras Nath Mali @ Paras Mali, Deo Narayan Sharma happen to be the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2013 commonly originate from the successive judgments dated 5.06.1998 passed by Sri Vikram Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhojpur at Arrah in connection with G.R. No. 2160 of 1993 whereby and whereunder all the three petitioners named above along with Supan Choudhary (since deceased) were found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 379/34, IPC and further each of them was directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days, one month, one month, nine months respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently as well as the judgment of confirmation dated 30.11.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 1998, accordingly been heard analogously and are being dispose of by common order. 2. While assailing the successive judgments, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the finding so arrived at by the successive Courts below are bad in law as well as on facts hence is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that neither the genesis of occurrence nor the manner of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution witness in a manner as has been advanced through initial version of the prosecution thus, making material development and embellishment in the prosecution. It has also been submitted that because of the fact that prosecution had posed the real cause for occurrence relating to settlement of pond in favour of son of the informant which actually belongs to Bhola Sinha by deceitful means and for that an application has been made by the leneal descendants of Bhola Sinha supported by these petitioners, on account thereof they have been penalized by the prosecution party. It is apparent from the cross-examination of witnesses itself that none of the family members of Bhola Sinha are residing at the village and in absence thereof, petitioners are the person who take care of the interest of son of Bhola Singh. 3. It is apparent from the cross-examination of witnesses itself that none of the family members of Bhola Sinha are residing at the village and in absence thereof, petitioners are the person who take care of the interest of son of Bhola Singh. 3. It has also been submitted that falsity of the case is further evident from the fact that the persons who had fished out happens to be resident of different village away from the P.O. village and on account of thereof, identification by name of the petitioners by them happens to be another circumstances which belie the prosecution version. The other circumstance which probablized the defence version is admission on the part of the witnesses itself that during aforesaid year which has been shown as date of occurrence there was no hatchery and so question of fishing does not arise. As such, the version of the prosecution is capricious as well as full of gamboge consequent thereupon both the petitions are fit to be allowed. Lastly, it has also been submitted that taking into account the nature of allegation and the controversy, even in case of having the concurrent finding approved, the sentence should be modified as period already undergone. 4. At the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submission and submitted that by concurrent finding complicity of petitioners during commission of crime is fully proved and on account thereof did not require interference during course of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence both the petition are fit to be dismissed. 5. While fishing was going on in the ditch bearing Khesra No. 1584 having been permanently settled in favour of Idrish son of informant Md. Madina on 27.09.1993 at village Dhamal, the petitioners along with others, after forming an unlawful assembly, raided and looted away fish and during course thereof they had also assaulted informant Md. Madina by means of fist and slap. For the aforesaid occurrence a written report was filed by the informant on 27.09.1993 itself whereupon Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 118 of 1993 was registered and after completing investigation, the petitioners including Supan Chaudhary (deceased) was put on trial and ultimately met with the result, the subject-matter of instant revision petition. 6. Altogether six PWs have been examined out of whom PW 1 is Ekbal Bind, PW 2 is Md. Sohrab Ali, PW 3 is Madan Bind, PW 4 is Md. 6. Altogether six PWs have been examined out of whom PW 1 is Ekbal Bind, PW 2 is Md. Sohrab Ali, PW 3 is Madan Bind, PW 4 is Md. Madina (informant), PW 5, Ram Chandra Singh (I.O.) and PW 6 Bhuneshwar Singh (formal) as well as had also exhibited series of document including the order of the settlement, rent receipt, formal FIR, written report, protest petition. 7. PW 4 during examination-in-chief have supported his case whatever he had narrated in his written report divulging the fact that the ditch which has been settled in favour of his son, a military personnel wherein fishing was going on, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, accused along with others variously armed came abused, assaulted him with fist and slap and then looted away the fish. During course of cross-examination at para-4 he had shown ignorance that the aforesaid ditch belonging to Shankar Sinha. On account of his absence, it has been recorded in name of Bihar Sarkar and so the grand son of Shankar Sinha, son of Bhola Sinha, namely, Janki Nath and Madan Nath have filed petition before the Collector for cancellation of settlement which is going on. However, he had admitted house of Shankar Sinha at the western flank of aforesaid ditch at a distance of 50 steps. He had further disclosed that fish was put during aforesaid period as well as previous year. Then again in para-5 he had controverted his own version and submitted that during concurrent year fish was not put in the pond. Then had stated that at the time when accused persons came towards western side he was near the fishing. The accused persons abused and then took away fish. He was mere spectator and then thereafter he had gone to Police Station and reported the matter. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have supported the version. Even during course of cross-examination nothing adverse has been found. 8. In spite of having cross-examination of PW 4, informant petitioners could not be able to file even an order sheet suggesting that son of Bhola Singh had ever filed objection against settlement having in favour of Idris by the Govt. Therefore, taking into account the consistent version of the prosecution with regard to manner of occurrence, the offence so alleged is found fully proved. Therefore, taking into account the consistent version of the prosecution with regard to manner of occurrence, the offence so alleged is found fully proved. Now coming to the question of sentence, it is evident that petitioners have got no criminal antecedent nay they, since before the occurrence, had pounced upon adverse to the interest of the prosecution. Furthermore, the nature of the allegation in consonance with the intervening long duration did justify some sort of interference on this very score and on account thereof the sentence so inflicted by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellant Court is modified to the extent of period already undergone. Both the revision is dismissed with modification in sentence as indicated above. Petitioner Ram Surat Choudhary is on bail, hence is discharged from its liability while petitioners Paras Nath Mali @ Paras Mali, Deo Narayan Sharma are under custody and hence are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Petitions dismissed.