JUDGMENT : Since in all the cases, the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court, but have filed separate appeals and since common question of law and fact is involved in all the cases, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It appears that in Criminal Revision No. 867 of 2005 co-convict Abraham Bhengra was also one of the petitioners being petitioner no. 3, but since he did not surrender, his name was deleted and after his surrender, he filed separate revision being Criminal Revision No. 339 of 2006 which is also being taken up along with Cr. Revision Nos. 654 of 2005 and 867 of 2005. 3. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. These applications are directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum FTC, Khunti, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 06.05.2000 passed by the learned SDJM, Khunti, Ranchi in G. R. No. 520 of 1994 convicting the petitioners under Sections 143, 384 and 379 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo 2 years R.I. was affirmed. 5. It has been stated by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a bona-fide business dispute between the parties which led to the false implication of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the I.O. of the case has not been examined and since the place of occurrence could not be established, the prosecution case is vitiated on that score also. It has been stated that the petitioners were the members of the Cooperative Society and on account of a business rivalry, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. An alternative argument has been put forward that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be suitably modified considering the nature of the allegations as well as the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1994. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer and has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in forcibly taking away stones which led to institution of the FIR. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer and has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in forcibly taking away stones which led to institution of the FIR. He further submits that no chit of paper was produced by the defence that the incident had taken place on account of business rivalry or for that matter they had valid lease for mining the boulders from the place of occurrence. 7. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 29.03.1994, the accused persons had entered into the lease land of the informant with truck bearing no. BEN/9545 and BRS/3227 and had started loading the stone boulders on truck with the help of the labourers forcibly and without the consent of the informant. It is alleged that threatening was also given to the labourers. Further allegation has been levelled that Ranglal Sahu (P.W. 5) and Hari Prasad Sahu (P.W. 4) were proceeding towards Khunti on a motor-cycle and they stopped near the place of occurrence and had enquired and they had been informed by the labourers that the boulders have been lifted by the accused persons and on being asked, the accused persons threatened the P.W. 4 & 5 and thereafter the loaded truck went away to Churgi. The informant on coming to know about the aforesaid fact had rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found 2 trucks standing on the lease land and boulders have been loaded on it by the accused persons. On being asked, the accused persons have also threatened with dire consequences which ultimately led to institution of the FIR being G. R. No. 520 of 1994. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned SDJM, Khunti while passing the judgment dated 06.05.2000 had convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 384 and 379 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2000 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum FTC, Khunti on 18.05.2005. 8. In course of trial, 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2000 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner cum FTC, Khunti on 18.05.2005. 8. In course of trial, 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Raju Lohra is the labourer who was working on the leased land of the informant and who had stated that the accused persons had started loading boulders on truck. This witness had stated that Rang Lal Sahu (P.W. 5) was passing on a motor-cycle and when the entire incident was explained to him, he had resisted the act of the accused persons, but the same fell on deaf ears and the loaded trucks were taken away to Churgi. This witness has stated that after the alleged incident, he had informed the owner of the leased land. P.W. 2 – Saryu Lohra was also present on the site and he fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 3 – Satna Lohra has also stated on similar terms to that of P.W. 2. This witness has stated that the mines of the accused persons were being operated. P.W. 4 – Hari Prasad Sahu is a witness who had seen the incident while he was going to Khunti on a motor-cycle. This witness had also supported the prosecution case. P.W. 5 – Ranglal Sahu was accompanying P.W. 4 while going to Khunti. This witness has stated that stones of informant were forcibly loaded on trucks in his presence. P.W. 6 – Rameshwar Sahu is the informant who has clearly stated that the place of occurrence is his lease land in which boulders were mined and the accused persons have forcibly taken away the boulders on trucks. This witness has also stated about the threat meted out by the accused persons, when he was alleged to have protested. He has also admitted that the mines of the accused persons are adjacent to the mines leased out to him. 9. Although, the defence has tried to project a picture that the land in which the boulders were being mined and were being loaded on trucks belonged to them, but save and except some reference of some of the witnesses, no document has been produced by the defence to substantiate such claims. 9. Although, the defence has tried to project a picture that the land in which the boulders were being mined and were being loaded on trucks belonged to them, but save and except some reference of some of the witnesses, no document has been produced by the defence to substantiate such claims. It is the consistent case of the informant that the land in question in which the occurrence had taken place belonged to him. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the application for demarcation was made by the informant which would suggest that the land which was leased out to the informant was not properly established, but as has been stated above, the defence could not file a single chit of paper to substantiate its contention that the land on which the boulders were being loaded actually belonged to the accused persons. The evidence of the witnesses have categorically established the place of occurrence and in such circumstances also the non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal for the prosecution. The labourers who had loaded the boulders on trucks under threat have supported the prosecution case apart from P.W. 4 & 5 who were going to Khunti on a motor-cycle and coming to know about the incident had verified the same and they were also threatened by the accused persons. Such circumstances have rightly been considered by the learned trial court and the petitioners were convicted by the learned SDJM, Khunti. The learned appellate court also on proper appreciation of the materials, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment dated 06.05.2000 passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court are hereby sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1994 and they have also remained for some time in custody. 11. Considering the nature of allegations, the long pendency of the prosecution case coupled with the incarceration they have suffered, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 12. These applications stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.