Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 116 of 1985 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in G.R. No. 940 of 1980 by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 324, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months whereas the petitioner no. 10 had been additionally convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed.

3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the informant along with his brother and nephew were ploughing their field. It is alleged that the accused persons were cutting the ridge for amalgamating the land of the accused persons which resulted in a protest made by the informant party and the petitioner had committed assault upon them.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 940 of 1980 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and trial proceeded.

5. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. It appears from perusal of the evidence of the witnesses that P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the injured eye witnesses who have stated about the fact regarding ploughing of their land and the attempts made by the accused persons to demolish the ridge existing between the land of the petitioners and the land of the informants party which resulted in indiscriminate assault made by the petitioners party. These witnesses had suffered injuries on their person. P.W.6 Akal Mahto is also an eye witness who has stated that he was ploughing his filed with P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 when the accused persons had started assaulting each of them. This witness has stated that P.W.1 was assaulted by Thakur Singh with bhala and Sukhdeo Singh had also given bhala blow. He had further stated that all the persons present had suffered injuries. P.W.3 is Dr. S.P. Poddar who had stated that he had examined the injured persons and had found several injuries on their person.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the subject matter of the dispute is Plot No. 1143 and the informant had failed to prove that the said plot belongs to him. It has also been submitted that most of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are related to each other and therefore their evidence cannot be believed. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has prejudiced the defence as the place of occurrence also could not be established.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

8. It appears that there is consistent evidence on record of the injured eye witnesses who have in categorical terms stated about the infringement made in their agricultural field by the accused persons which resulted in a protest made by the informant party and the subsequent assault committed by the petitioners upon the informant party. The injury sustained by P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 have duly been proved through the injury reports. So far as Plot No. 1143 is concerned it appears from the documentary evidence that the informant had been able to prove his right title and ownership over the said plot of land. The defence did not produce a chit of paper to substantiate their contention that Plot No. 1143 belongs to them. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses are related to each other but on careful scrutiny of the evidence of the injured eye witnesses their does not appear to be any adulteration in their evidence. Such circumstances having been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 324, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 10 was additionally convicted for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and all the petitioners were sentenced to various terms ranging from six months R.I. to 1 year R.I. The learned appellate court on proper appreciation of the materials available on record rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court against the petitioners and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned it appears that the dispute had taken place on account of possession of a land. The petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since almost four decades and the petitioners also seems to have remained in custody for some time. On consideration of such facts the petitioners deserves some leniency in the sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, 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.