JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur on 18.10.2004 in G.R. Case No. 508 of 1999 (T.R. Case No. 161 of 2004), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 323, 341, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to various terms has been affirmed and modification has been made with respect to the judgment of the learned trial court with respect to the sentences which were directed to be run consecutively but the learned appellate court has modified the same and it has been directed that the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is previous land dispute between the parties and the petitioners claimed ownership over Plot No. 2573. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informants were the aggressors who had encroached upon the Plot of the petitioners and therefore it cannot be said that there was any act of house trespass on the part of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution are mostly related witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 are father and son whereas P.W.3 is the witness who has filed several cases against the accused persons. Learned counsel thus submits that the evidence of the prosecution cannot be said to be trustworthy as the witnesses are certainly partisan witnesses. It has thus been submitted that since neither the learned trial court nor the learned appellate court had properly appreciated the materials available on record the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners and affirmed by the learned appellate court be set aside. 3. Mr. H.P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 4. It appears from the First Information Report that on 14.12.1999 when the informant was sitting in his house the accused persons had started abusing him and knocked at the door. 3. Mr. H.P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 4. It appears from the First Information Report that on 14.12.1999 when the informant was sitting in his house the accused persons had started abusing him and knocked at the door. It is alleged that when the informant opened the door the accused persons have forcibly entered into the house and co-accused Sukhdev Gupta had given a iron rod blow on the head of the informant whereas co-accused Onkar Prasad Gupta had also assaulted the informant with an iron rod. It has further been alleged that accused Ram Gopal Gupta had also assaulted him and Rs. 500/- was removed from his pocket and his wrist watch has also taken away. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegations Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 232 of 1999 (G.R. Case No. 508 of 1999) was instituted u/s 323, 448 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and thereafter the trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Girdhari Lal Thadani is the informant himself who has stated that his house is situated in Plot No. 2574 and Plot No. 2573 is situated just besides his house. This witness has shown his ignorance about the purchase of Plot No. 2573 by Shiv Prasad Gupta from one Bhawani Devi. This witness has further stated that he has got one kattha and 10 dhurs of land in Plot No. 2573 with respect to which both the parties were on litigating terms. This witness has also stated that he has got his factory of manufacturing iron rods over Plot No. 2573. He has further admitted that there was a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. over Plot No. 2573 and a case u/s 188 I.P.C. was also instituted against him. P.W.2 Jitendra Thadani is the son of the informant P.W.1 who has stated on similar lines as that of P.W.1. P.W.3 Durga Mukherjee has supported the prosecution case and has stated that her house stands over Plot No. 2573. This witness has further stated that there is a land dispute going on between the parties. P.W.2 Jitendra Thadani is the son of the informant P.W.1 who has stated on similar lines as that of P.W.1. P.W.3 Durga Mukherjee has supported the prosecution case and has stated that her house stands over Plot No. 2573. This witness has further stated that there is a land dispute going on between the parties. She has further stated about Sukdev Prasad Gupta having a iron rod in his hand. P.W.4 Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma had examined the informant and found certain injuries on his person. P.W.5 Santosh Kr. Suman is the Investigating Officer who had inspected the place of occurrence recorded the statement of the witnesses’ u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter submitted charge sheet. The defence had examined one witness namely Abdul Razzak Biswas who is a formal witness who has proved a sale deed marked as Exhibit-D as well as various other documents which would suggest that there was previous enmity between the parties. 7. The evidence of assault has merely been supported by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 although the defence had tried to demolish the case of the prosecution by stating that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 all are interested witnesses and therefore their evidence cannot be reliable or trustworthy but merely on that score the prosecution case cannot fail as it is to be seen from the evidence of these three witnesses as to whether their evidence should be disbelieved or should be considered in its proper perspective in order to come to a just decision. 8. Admittedly there is a land dispute going on between the parties for which several cases had also been instituted against each other. The bone of contention seems to be Plot No. 2573 which the petitioners claim to be their own and so also the informant P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are related to each other being father and son have given a very natural evidence to the effect that they have shown ignorance with respect to the purchase of Plot No. 2573 by Shiv Prasad Gupta from one Bhawani Devi. However, these witnesses had stated that one Kattha and 10 dhurs of land in Plot No. 2573 are in possession with respect to which the accused are on litigating terms. However, these witnesses had stated that one Kattha and 10 dhurs of land in Plot No. 2573 are in possession with respect to which the accused are on litigating terms. Although enmity seems to be the main factor which has been insisted by the defence but it is common knowledge that enmity is a double edge sword which cuts both ways. Merely because the parties are on litigating terms it cannot be deduced that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The surrounding circumstances have to be taken note of and it can also be assumed that on account of the enmity prevailing between both the sides the incident of trespass and assault had been committed by the petitioners. P.W.3 although is said to have earlier instituted case against the informant party but she had also supported the occurrence with respect to the dispute going on between the parties over Plot No. 2573. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 appears to be reliable and trustworthy and considering their evidence the learned trial court had convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 323, 341, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal code. The learned appellate court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case for almost two decades. The petitioners have also remained for some time in custody. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.