ORDER : Banumathi, J. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court dated 6th March, 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.2181/2003 and Criminal Appeal No.301/2002, in and by which the appellants-accused have been convicted under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years the appellants preferred these appeals. 3. The occurrence in-question took place on 11th February, 2000 due to the declaration of the result of election for Deputy Sarpanch. The appellants-accused are the supporters of one Inder Singh who lost the election of the Deputy Sarpanch. The case of the prosecution is that Asharam (PW-1) and his group are supporters of one Kalyan Singh who won the election of the Deputy Sarpanch. 4. Based upon the evidence of eye-witnesses and other evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellants-accused under Sections 147 and 294 I.P.C. and under Sections 323 read with 149 I.P.C. and imposed fine on each of them. The Trial Court acquitted the appellants-accused under Section 436 I.P.C. Being aggrieved against the acquittal of the appellant-accused under Section 436 I.P.C., the State preferred appeals before the High Court. 5. The High court held that even though the nearby shop owners have not supported the case of the prosecution, upon consideration of the evidence of Asharam (PW-1) and other witnesses, held the appellants-accused guilty under Section 436 I.P.C. and reversed the acquittal of the appellants-accused under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for three years and also imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each of them. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us. 6. Considering the evidence and other materials on record, we do not find any good ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment convicting the appellants-accused under Section 436 I.P.C. 7. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants-accused, namely, Jhabbu has undergone the sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and Seetaram, Lakhan, Motilal & Suresh 31 days and appellant-accused, Raju, has undergone the sentence of about two months. 8. Occurrence was of the year 2000 due to the election dispute among the party members. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the totality of the evidence and materials on record, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants-accused under Section 436 is modified and reduced from threes years to the period already undergone by each of them. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the totality of the evidence and materials on record, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants-accused under Section 436 is modified and reduced from threes years to the period already undergone by each of them. 9. Accordingly the appeals are partly allowed.