Against the judgment and order dated 10.10.1996 passed by Sri Nand Kishore Narayan Sinha, First Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1991/26 of 1992. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.265 of 1996 1. RAM NATH PASWAN SON OF KHUBLAL PASWAN. 2. SAHEB PASWAN SON OF BALDEV PASWAN. 3. UMA PASWAN SON OF SAHEB PASWAN. 4. JITU PASWAN SON OF DOMA PASWAN. 5. JAI KISHUN PASWAN SON OF DOMA PASWAN. 6. BACHAN PASWAN SON OF BUDHU PASWAN. 7. SAKAL PASWAN SON OF MANGAL PASWAN. 8. SUNAR PASWAN SON OF DASAI PASWAN. 9. PARMESHWAR PASWAN SON OF BUDHU PASWAN, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KOLSO, P.S. TARIYANI, DISTRICT SHEOHAR(SITAMARHI) …….APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, Addl. P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. No one appears on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellants have been convicted under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and further convicted U/S 323 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 4. The prosecution case is that on 13.06.1988 at about 4 P.M. the appellants came armed with lathi and began to destroy and demolish the house of the informant which was meant for keeping Bhusa, Hal, Kudal, Grain and was used as cattle shed and all the accused persons began to assault him with fist and slaps. It is said that the motive behind the 2 occurrence is that accused had contested a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with respect to the same land and proceeding under Section 145 ended in favour of the informant. 5. The case proceeded on complaint by lodging FIR under Section 156(B) Cr.P.C. on investigation trial proceeded but cognizance taken on protest petition treating as complaint. 5. The learned amicus curiae, however, contended that there are material contradiction in the evidence of witness and the remained of burnt has not been adduced in evidence by I.O. and though there is allegation of assault but no injury on the informant has been found and hence the prosecution has not proved charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The case proceeded on complaint so nor examination of the I.O. is not of much significant and hence I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of conviction. On perusal of record the contradiction pointed out does not go to the roof the prosecution case to disturb the finding. 7. However, so far the sentence is concerned the occurrence is of the year 1988 and more than 22 years have elapsed and age of the appellant are 35 to 55 years at the time of conviction and 15 years have already elapsed and the appellants remanded in jail from the date of order of conviction till they were granted bail in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and end of justice shall meet by sentence the appellants for period already undergone after conviction till there release on bail. 8. Hence, with the modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, 4th July, 2011 N.A.F.R./Devendra/