K. L. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 18. 8. 1979 passed by Sri Munni Lal, II Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial no. 24 of 1976 (Crime No. 483 of 1976) State v. Jamil and Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1978 State v. Aziz Ahmed and Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1978 State v. Jamil whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 332 I. P. C. , under Sec. 324/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and further two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- under the offences respectively. Both the appellants have been further convicted and sentenced to six months R. I. under section 25 Arms Act. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri J. N. Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Sri R. S. Sanger Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the doctor who examined the injuries of the two injured persons, was not examined by the prosecution and as such the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identification of the injured persons which makes their presence doubtful at the time and place of the occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has replied that the medical doctor who examined the injuries of Rajpal Singh (P. W. 3) and Yashpal Singh (P. W. 1), was not produced by the prosecution for the reason that the genuineness of the injury reports was admitted by the learned defence counsel before the trial Court and the injury reports prepared by the doctor were tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Further the injured Yashpal Singh, P. W. 1 and Rajpal Singh, P. W. 3 was also examined on oath and they have proved the fact that they received injuries in the alleged incident and therefore the injuries were examined by the doctor. In view of the evidence of the injured witnesses corroborated by the recitals in the injury reports Exts. Ka 14 and Ext. Ka 15, it is not at all doubtful that the injured witnesses had received injuries as described by the doctor in his reports which were prepared in the ordinary course of the discharge of public duties by a government doctor. Ka 14 and Ext. Ka 15, it is not at all doubtful that the injured witnesses had received injuries as described by the doctor in his reports which were prepared in the ordinary course of the discharge of public duties by a government doctor. Therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the non production of the medical officer has made the prosecution case doubtful is not convincing and is not acceptable. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further contended that the complainant Saeed Ahmad, who had scribed the first information report Ext. Ka 1, was not produced by the prosecution and the first information report on the basis of which prosecution case is founded, has not been proved in the eye of law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has replied that the first information report was proved by the constable Yashpal Singh C/349, P. W. 1 who worked as a colleague of the scribe Saeed Ahmed C/61 at the same police station and who saw him writing and signing in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The first information report could be proved by the evidence of a person is whose presence, the Scribe had written and signed. I find that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right. The testimony of Yashpal Singh, injured (P. W. 1) who was a constable at police station Ganj, Rampur, has been able to prove the first information report which has been marked as Ext. Ka 1. The non-production of the Scribe Saeed Ahmad does not therefore, affect the veracity of the injured witness Yashpal Singh, P. W. 1 and does not cast any shadow of doubt on the foundation of the prosecution case. The Indian Evidence Act prescribes more than one ways for proving a fact either by oral evidence or by documentary evidence. Therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that the knives with which the appellants are stated to have attacked the constables Yashpal Singh and Rajpal Singh were not actually produced before the Sessions Court and as such the prosecution case suffers from an infirmity which causes reasonable doubt. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that the knives with which the appellants are stated to have attacked the constables Yashpal Singh and Rajpal Singh were not actually produced before the Sessions Court and as such the prosecution case suffers from an infirmity which causes reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor invites attention to the testimony of the injured Yashpal Singh P. W. 1 and Rajpal Singh P. W. 3 who have categorically stated in their respective testimony that the appellants had knives in their hands and had attacked them with their knives and they received knife injuries. Their testimony is corroborated by the recitals of injuries mentioned in the injury reports Exts. Ka 14 and Ka 15. In view of the material on record, no doubt can be entertained if the material exhibits namely the knives have not been brought before the Court. Moreover there is nothing to substantiate this contention that the knives were not actually produced before the Sessions Court. I find that these knives have also been proved as material exhibits and they were brought before the Court as indicated by the witness Yashpal Singh C/349, P. W. I at the bottom of page 3 of his testimony available in the original record of the sessions trial, and therefore, this contention is also repelled. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that this appeal has been now heard after a gap of 18 years from the date of occurrence and the appellant Jamil who was 25 years of age in 1976, is now 43 years of age and the appellant Aziz Ahmad who was 35 years of age in 1976, is now 53 years of age and the third co-accused Hafeez alias Chinak Dada has already been acquitted by the Sessions Court in the year 1979 and therefore it would be very cruel if the two appellants are now sent to Jail after a gap of about 18 years. The learned Senior Advocate has therefore humbly submitted that it would meet the ends of justice if two years rigorous imprisonment awarded for the two offences separately is converted into a fine of sentence in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone by these two appellants. The learned Senior Advocate has therefore humbly submitted that it would meet the ends of justice if two years rigorous imprisonment awarded for the two offences separately is converted into a fine of sentence in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone by these two appellants. It is true that these appeals are being heard and disposed of after a long gap of 15 years from the date of their filing in this Court. The incident in which the appellants were involved, had occurred in October, 1976. One of the three co-accused namely Hafiz has already been acquitted by the Court of Sessions in the year 1979. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced these two appellant, separately for two years rigorous imprisonment under each offence with a fine of Rs. 500/- and six months rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act. In any opinion it appears to be just and proper if these appellants are also sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and in addition, to a fine of Rs. 500/- in lieu of the remaining period of imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants; and in addition thereto the appellants are directed to pay an additional fine of Rs. 500/- in lieu of the remaining period of imprisonment. The appellants are therefore directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 1000/- each as fine for the offences under which they stand convicted, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur within a period of thirty days from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case they commit default in the payment of the fine, each of them shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months under each offences. Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur and also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur for information and necessary action. Appeal allowed partly. .