Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 10th September 1996, passed by Shri Ram Narayan Singh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1986/ Tr. No. 110 of 1996. 1. Md. Najim, son of Md. Jalil. 2. Md. Muslim, son of Late Md. Rijat. 3. Md. Jamil, son of Late Md Dost Mohammad. 4. Md. Alam, son of Late Md. Rahman. 5. Md. Shamshul, son of Md. Rijat. 6. Md. Jalil, son of Late Md. Dost Mohammad. 7. Md. Gulo, son of Md. Jalil. 8. Md. Kalimuddin, son of Md. Jalil. 9. Md. Sagir, son of Mazul. 10. Md. Farla @ Asfarul, son of Md. Jamil. 11. Md. Mahiuddin, son of Md. Jalil. All of Village- Sabutar, P.S. K. Nagar, District-Purnea. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. = PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. . 2. The appellants Sagir and Md. Mohiuddin have been convicted for offence under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code with regard to setting on fire of huts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and other appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 436 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. All the accused persons have further convicted under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Pharla and Alam further convicted under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It has further ordered that all the sentenced shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that dispute arises for constructing the hut on the land of the informant and on protest there was altercation between the parties and setting fire on the house. However, there is land dispute between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants however, contends that occurrence is of the year 1984 and conviction recorded even without examination of I.O. and since then appellants are facing of trial and appeal and after conviction they have also remained in jail for about one month till release on bail by the order of the Hon’ble High Court and hence a lenient view may be taken. 5. Hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the interest of justice shall meet by 3 sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone. 7. With this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court, The 28th July, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)