Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31-5-1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nawada in S.T. No. 468/84 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Secs. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 4-1-1981. It has been alleged by the informant Rajendra Singh that the appellants came variously armed and assaulted him, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The motive of the occurrence as alleged was previous enmity and litigation. On the fardbeyan of the informant, a formal First Information Report was drawn and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Secs. 307/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellants RS indicated above. 3. The defence of the appellants was that no occurrence in the manner as alleged had taken place. They have falsely been implicated in the case out of enmity and litigation. Earlier also case was lodged against the appellants in which they have been acquitted. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom P.W. 5 was Doctor and P W. 6 was a formal witness, P.W. 4, the informant, supported the prosecution case and stated that he, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were assaulted. P.W. 1 stated that on hearing hulla, he went to the place of occurrence and he was also assaulted. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 3 who stated that when he went to the place of occurrence he saw the appellants and they assaulted them, P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the injured persons, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 the informant. The Doctor stated that injuries found on the person of Ashok Kumar, P.W. 2 and Shyam Kishore Singh, P.W. 1 were simple in nature. However, out of the injuries found on P.W. 4, one was grievous in nature. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. It appears that attention of the witnesses was drawn to the statement made earlier before the police but since the Investigating Officer was not examined the same cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, it can be said that case of defence has prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. It appears that attention of the witnesses was drawn to the statement made earlier before the police but since the Investigating Officer was not examined the same cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, it can be said that case of defence has prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating Officer. However, on broad aspect of the matter, the conviction of the appellants cannot be set aside but it appears that the occurrence took place in the year 1981 i.e. about 19 years ago. It has been stated by the Counsel for the parties that appellants have already remained in jail for about a month. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter that the occurrence took place about 19 years ago and as such sending the appellants in jail after such a long time would not be in the end of justice nor it will serve any useful purpose, thus the conviction of the appellants under Secs. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500.00 is also imposed on each appellant which shall be paid by them within a period of three months. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 6. The appeal is thus dismissed with modification as indicated above.