Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna, in Session Trial No. 676/86. The sole appellant was convicted under Section 326, IPC and also under Section 452, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence under Section 326, IPC and one year for the offence under Section 452, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as developed, in the fardbeyan of Sarswati Devi (informant) was to the effect that on 22.5.1985, she was sitting with her child in her lap where suddenly appellant came and gave several chura blows upon her. The alleged occurrence took place on account of earlier quarrel between the children of the informant and the children of the accused. After assault, accused-appellant also relieved the informant of her golden earing and he took away Rs. 2000/- from attache in the room in which she was sitting. 3. Accused was charged under Sections 452, 307 and 380, IPC. However, he was convicted under Sections 326 and 452, IPC. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 380, IPC. 4. Prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and the accused also examined one witness in his defence. PW 1 is Swarsati Devi (informant) herself. PWs 2, 4 and 5 were tendered. PW 7 is doctor, PW 8 is the 10 of the case and PW 9 is another IO who submitted charge-sheet. PW 10 is a formal witness who has proved endorsement on the FIR. 5. Thus, on record, there are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. So far evidence of PW 1 on the point of occurrence is concerned, she supports, by a detailed account, the occurrence right from entry of the accused into her house upto the stage where she was assaulted and subsequently carried to hospital. 6. It was submitted by the convicts lawyer that she was not corroborated by any of the witnesses, much lees neighbours, as the occurrence took place at 10 a.m. It has further been submitted that her daughter Meena, who according to PW 1 was sitting by her side, failed to say that she was by the side of her mother. She has been cited as PW 6. She was cleaning utensils at the time of the occurrence on the ground floor. She has been cited as PW 6. She was cleaning utensils at the time of the occurrence on the ground floor. So according to the convicts lawyer, there is no corroborative evidence so far alleged occurrence is concerned. 7. However, after the evidence of Meena (PW 6) informants daughter, is concerned, in chief, she claims to have seen the occurrence but in cross-examination, she falls short of corroborating the alleged occurrence as an eye-witness, but she at least supports the fact that when she went to see her mother on the alarm raised, by her, she found her in injured condition. Husband of the informant (PW 3) also supports the fact that when he came to his house on information from one of his sons, he found his wife in injured condition and he was told by the injured that she was assaulted by accused/appellant. He carried her to hospital where she was treated. So the corroborative evidence comes from the mouth of the husband and the daughter of the informant who had at least seen the informant in an injured condition. So far IO is concerned, he, as PW 8, went to the place of occurrence and found blood stains on the stair case. It was submitted by the convicts lawyer that the IO did not find blood inside the room. The IO also did not find any material regarding theft kept in the attache. PW 7 is the doctor who found as many as 8 injures on the informant out of which injury No. 4 was punctured wound l"xl/2"xl" on the left shoulder. Injury No. 2 which was sharp cutting injury on the left middle finger was found to be grievous. It was submitted that the doctor found only one penetrating injury and other injuries were caused by sharp cutting substance. So the story of assault with chura is not believable. However, I am of the opinion that chura, if used, by a sharp edge, makes sharp cutting injury also. Alleged story of chura cannot be disbelieve 1 on the basis of the statement of the convicts lawyer. So far defence of the convicts lawyer is concerned, there is no plausible defence except that the accused has been falsely implicated. Defence witness (DW 1) speaks of partition between the parties who are agnates a year prior to the alleged occurrence. Alleged story of chura cannot be disbelieve 1 on the basis of the statement of the convicts lawyer. So far defence of the convicts lawyer is concerned, there is no plausible defence except that the accused has been falsely implicated. Defence witness (DW 1) speaks of partition between the parties who are agnates a year prior to the alleged occurrence. There is no dispute regarding property or any kind of prior enmity between the accused and the informant. So perhaps the motive as given in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) to the effect that on account of quarrel between the children, the occurrence took place, appears to be plausible. 8. There being no plausible explanation for false implication and which the occurrence was supported by the informant and it had been corroborated by her husband and daughter, the probability of alleged assault at the hands of the appellant upon the informant gains support from the circumstances and the evidence on record. So I do not think there is any illegality or irregularity or material error in the finding regarding the guilt of the accused, by the trial Court Charge under Section 307, IPC may be reduced to one under Section 326, IPC under the provision of Section 222(2), Cr PC if the evidence proves the same. 9. The sentence of 3 years under Section 326, IPC according to convicts lawyer is excessive. But I do not think so. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. So maximum period of sentence is only for 3 years. The period spent by the convict during the course of trial or even thereafter is bound to be set off, against the total period of sentence passed under Section 428, Cr PC. So I do not think if proper to reduce the period of sentence. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is hereby confirmed. Appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below to suffer remaining period of sentence.