Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.312 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21. 08. 1998, passed by Shri Ram Vyas Ram, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1991. 1. Godhan Ram, son of Late Jagdeo Ram. 2. Tulshi Ram, son of Late Keshwar Ram. 3. Shyam Bihari Ram, son of Late Bansh Ropan Ram. 4. Shyam Bihari Ram, son of Sri Bucha Ram. 5. Bucha Ram, son of Late Neur Ram. 6. Laxman Ram, son of Late Keshwar Ram. 7. Baban Ram, son of Sri Narayan Ram. 8. Deo Muni Ram, son of Sri Laxman Ram. 9. Jamhu Ram, son of Late Jagdeo Ram. 10. Sheomuni Ram, son of Sri Laxman Ram. 11. Narayan Ram, son of Sri Neur Ram. All residents of Village- Mahrorh, P.S. Natwar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. For the Appellants : Dr. M. K. Gautam, Advocate. Mr. Manish Kumar No. 13, Advocate. Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant no. 1, Godhan Ram has been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicted under Section 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act and 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Appellant no. 2 Tulshi Ram has been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. for four years. However, appellant nos. 3 to 11 have already been given benefit of doubt under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants however contends that a lenient view may be taken as it is a case and counter case. 4. However, taking into consideration the fact that occurrence is of the year 1989 and appellant nos. 1 and 2 have remained in jail after conviction from 21. 08. 1998 to 15. 09. 1998. 5. Hence in the interest of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone and hence with this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court. The 4th August, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)