Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2006 (SJ) *** Against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2005 passed in S. Tr. No. 89/93 / 253/2002 / 768/2004 by Sri Brajnandan Prasad, Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Jehanabad. *** 1. Ram Deo Prasad son of Late Shankar Sao, 2. Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Sao All resident of village- Tehta, P.S. Makhdumpur, Distirct- Jehanabad … Appellants Versus The State of Bihar … Respondent *** For the appellants : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S. N. Prasad, A.P.P. *** P R E S E N T Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash *** Anjana Prakash, J. Appellant no.1 has been convicted for the offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of rupees one thousand and in default of which simple imprisonment for one month, whereas, both the appellants have also been convicted for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC II, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No. 89/93 / 253 of 2002 / 768/2004. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.1992 at about 5.30 PM the informant Tunu Lal Thathera saw the present appellants beating Dewanshu Kumar with Khanti at which he tried to intervene. The appellant no.1 then inflicted a Khanti blow on his mouth due to which his upper teeth were broken and when his mother and wife tried to save him, the appellant Ramdeo Prasad further inflicted injuries on his mother and his wife. Champa Devi wife of appellant no.1 Ramdeo Prasad also participated in the said occurrence. 2 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all, out of whom, P.W. 1 Chinta Devi is the wife of the informant and also injured, whereas, P.W. 2 Rajdeo Prasad is the brother of the informant and P.W.4 is the informant himself and P.W.6 Paras Nath is an independent witness, who is also an eye witness, and P.W. 8 Dewanshu Kumar is the victim of the earlier part of the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 7, namely, Mahesh Prasad and Vijoy Prasad have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.5 Kailash Kumar is a formal witness, whereas, P.W.10 ASI Dinesh Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.9 Dr. K. P. Singh is the doctor, who has examined the four victims. It appears that prosecution has examined two independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 and 7, who have been declared hostile but P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8, even though interested witnesses, have fully supported the factum of assault by the accused persons. The defence has also examined one witness on its behalf. 4. Apart from the minor contradictions, there is nothing which would incriminate the prosecution and make it unbelievable. In fact, it was the case of the prosecution that the police had come right after the occurrence and had found the witnesses injured. The doctor, who examined the four injured, found one incised wound at the upper lip and dislocation of two teeth on the person of the informant which fully corroborate the prosecution case. 5. I find that P.W.1, 2, 4 and 6 are fully reliable on the point of assault by the accused persons and the same is also corroborated by the medical evidence. 6. Under the circumstances, I find no reason to disagree with the judgment of conviction and the appeal is dismissed. However, it appears that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1992 i.e. about 17 years ago and the appellants have faced the trauma of trial since last 17 years. In such circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellants is modified to the period already undergone and further a fine of 3 Rupees one thousand each which would be payable to the informant or his heirs within two months of the receipt of a copy of the judgment in the court below. Failure to pay the fine would make the appellants liable for simple imprisonment for a term of six months each. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as stated above. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 26th October, 2009 NAFR/ JA/-