JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Ughal, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1998 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.08.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in G.R. Case No. 1490 of 1990 (T.R. No. 58 of 1998), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 326/149, 323/149, 325/149, 337/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to various terms, has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by Mr. S. K. Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a land dispute which led to institution of the present F.I.R. It has further been submitted that the most of the witnesses are related witnesses and their evidence being not trustworthy, the same cannot be relied upon. It has also been submitted that arising out of the same incident a case had also been instituted against the informant party in which they were convicted and sentenced by learned trial court, however considering the nature of allegation they were released under the Probation of Offenders Act. An alternative argument has advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of criminal case since 1990 and they have remained in custody for some time. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant, Nageshwar Goswami (P.W. 1) came to be in cultivating possession over 94 decimals of Raiyati land of village Mishradih. It is alleged that since 8 to 10 years Brahmdeo Mishra and his family members wanted to cultivate the said land claiming their own land and for which several times Panchayati was held. The allegation has been levelled that Brahmdeo Mishra, petitioner No. 1, had gone to plough the said land and on coming to know about the said fact, the informant had protested. It is alleged that the informant sent information to his house from where other family members came. The allegation has been levelled that Brahmdeo Mishra, petitioner No. 1, had gone to plough the said land and on coming to know about the said fact, the informant had protested. It is alleged that the informant sent information to his house from where other family members came. It is also alleged that consequent thereto assault was committed upon the informant party by petitioners by means of weapons which led to some of the persons, present at the place of occurrence, getting injured. Based on the aforesaid allegation Pirtand P.S. Case No. 62 of 1990 was registered for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 336 and 337 I.P.C. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih and after charges was framed, trial proceeded. 6. Since prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court under various sections and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1998, however was dismissed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih on 22.09.2004. 7. In course of trial ten witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. P.W. 1, Nageshwar Goswami is the informant of the case, who has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the petitioner No. 1 was ploughing the field which belonged to the informant and although a request was made by this witness not to plough the field, the same was not acceded to and subsequently assault was committed by the petitioners upon the informant party. This witness had further stated that Triloki Mishra, petitioner No. 7, had assaulted Prayag Goswami by sword but somehow he managed to save himself, but he sustained some cut injuries on his left hand. This witness has further stated that Juli Mishra assaulted Prayag Goswami by means of Barchha on his right hand and Dilip Mishra, petitioner No. 3, assaulted Prayag Goswami by Lathi on his arm. This witness claims to have been assaulted by Sukhdeo. He has further stated that Juli Mishra assaulted Meghlal Goswami with a Barchha. This witness has identified his fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. This witness claims to have been assaulted by Sukhdeo. He has further stated that Juli Mishra assaulted Meghlal Goswami with a Barchha. This witness has identified his fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 2, Nandlal Goswami, has supported the prosecution case fully and has categorically stated about the specific act of petitioners in committing assault to Prayag Goswami (P.W. 8). P.W. 3, Meghlal Goswami, is one of the injured who has stated that the accused persons had surrounded Prayag Goswami and Triloki Mishra had tried to give sword blow on the neck of Prayag Goswami, but he saved his neck and sustained injuries on his hand and his three fingers were injured. Juli Mishra assaulted Prayag Goswami with a Barchha. P.W. 4 Sanjay Kumar Goswami, P.W. 5 Chetlal Goswami and P.W. 6 Karu Kolh had also supported the occurrence with respect to the assault committed upon the informant party. P.W. 7 Ram Ekbal Yadav, is the Sub Inspector of Police and the informant of this case. This witness had stated that he had seen the three injured persons and he had sent all of them to Pirtand Government Hospital. He has further stated that after recording the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. P.W. 8 Prayag Goswami has stated that on account of ploughing of the field of the informant by the petitioner No. 1, the occurrence took place. He has given vivid description of the act of the accused persons in committing assault upon the informant party. P.W. 9 Shankar Goswami, who is also one of the injured witness , has supported the prosecution case fully. P.W. 10 Dr. Amar Nath Jha has stated that on 18.08.1990 he had examined P.W. 1 Nageshwar Goswami, P.W. 3 Meghlal Goswami and P.W. 8 Prayag Goswami and he had found several injuries on their persons and he had proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 5. 8. It appears from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that several injured witnesses have categorically stated about the role of the petitioners in committing assault upon the informant party by various means and resultantly several persons had suffered injuries. The oral evidence has been supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as several injuries had been found on the persons of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 8. The oral evidence has been supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as several injuries had been found on the persons of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 8. So far as P.W. 1 is concerned injury Nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature and as regards injury No. 1, opinion was reserved. As regards P.W. 3 is concerned, he had sustained two injuries, which were found simple in nature. P.W. 8 had suffered four injuries out of which injuries No. 2, 3 and 4 were simple whereas injury No. 4 was found to be grievous in nature. Thus the evidence of the witnesses coupled with the medical opinion of the Doctor suggest the culpability of the petitioners in committing the offence. The incident has further been fortified by the fact that arising out of the same incident, another F.I.R. was instituted from the side of the petitioners being Pirtand P.S. Case No. 60 of 1990, in which Bandu Rai, Prayag Goswami (P.W. 8), Shankar Goswami (P.W. 9) and Nageshwar Goswami (P.W. 1) were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court for the offences punishable u/s 324 and 148 I.P.C. However, in appeal they have been released under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. Thus the incident led to a case and counter case in which judgment of conviction and order of sentence was recorded against the respective sides. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioners have rightly been convicted by the learned trial court which has also been affirmed in appeal. There being no illegality so far as the order of conviction passed against the petitioner is concerned, the same is hereby sustained. As regards the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the most of the injuries suffered by all the three injured persons have been generally opined to be simple in nature, except injury No. 1 suffered by P.W. 8 which has been detected to be grievous but the same was over the fingers and not on any vital part of the body. The victims, who have been found to be the aggressors in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 60 of 1990, have been granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by the learned appellate court. It further appears that the petitioner have been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1990 and they have remained in custody for two months. The victims, who have been found to be the aggressors in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 60 of 1990, have been granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by the learned appellate court. It further appears that the petitioner have been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1990 and they have remained in custody for two months. In such view of the matter, the order of sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner.