JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2002, passed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them accordingly has been affirmed. 3. An FIR was instituted to the effect that while the informant was sleeping on 4.11.1988 in the corridor of his house, co accused persons came there and picked up quarrel with him and thereafter by using abusive word started beating the informant with a lathi. On hearing the cry of alarm, the sister in law as well as his mother had come to rescue him but they were also assaulted by the accused persons. After assaulting, the petitioners had taken away three mounds of paddy crops from the house of the informant. Subsequently two of the prosecution witnesses namely Gopal and Rupan Mahto had come to the place of occurrence and taken the informant to Deoghar Hospital for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No. 865 of 1988 was instituted. Upon conducting an investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners, cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, whereafter framing of charge, trial proceeded. Since the prosecution was able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted for the offence under sections 147, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly. An appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 76/1995 was preferred by the petitioners which was also dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge at Deoghar on 2nd August, 2002 by acquitting the petitioners for the offence under section 380 of IPC but sustaining the conviction against the petitioners with respect to Sections 147, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated due to previous enmity as earlier also proceedings under sections 107 and 144 of Cr.P.C. were initiated. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated due to previous enmity as earlier also proceedings under sections 107 and 144 of Cr.P.C. were initiated. It has further been submitted that the witnesses who had supported the prosecution case are all interested witnesses as they are relatives and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It appears that eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-3-Bimli Devi and P.W-4-Maina Mahtain are the victims, who have stated about the assault committed by the petitioners upon the informant and when they went to rescue him they were also assaulted. P.W-6 is the informant who had supported his narration made in the FIR and had also stated that when P.W-3 and 4 went to the place of occurrence they were also assaulted by the petitioners. P.W-1 Rupan Mahto is the nephew of the informant who had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm, at which accused persons had threatened him with dire consequences and thereafter they had taken away three mounds of paddy crops from the house of the informant. The doctor, who had treated P.Ws-3, 4 and 6, has been examined as P.W-7 who had found the injuries on the persons of the said witnesses. P.W-8 is the Investigating Officer of the case who had submitted chargesheet after finding the allegations to be true. Although contention has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the previous enmity existing between the parties in view of initiation of the proceeding under sections 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. but since enemity cuts both ways, same also is not of much help to the petitioners. Though some of the witnesses are related to each other but there has been consistent testimony from the said witnesses as it has been categorically stated about the petitioners of entering into the house of the informant, abusing him and assaulting him with lathi and on intervention by the P.Ws. 3 and 4, they were also assaulted. Evidence of P.Ws,. 1, 3, 4 and 6 has sufficiently been corroborated by the other witnesses. The place of occurrence has been duly established by the investigating officer. 3 and 4, they were also assaulted. Evidence of P.Ws,. 1, 3, 4 and 6 has sufficiently been corroborated by the other witnesses. The place of occurrence has been duly established by the investigating officer. Such circumstances therefore has rightly been considered by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court while convicting the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as section 380 of the IPC is concerned, learned appellate court was perfectly justified in acquitting the petitioners for the said offence. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court. 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 since the year 1988 and the maximum punishment, which has been awarded to the petitioners is of two months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 323 of the IPC. The petitioners have also remained in custody for sometime. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.