Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The factual matrix are that a police case was registered at behest of Jhopri Gope (P.W. 4) with accusation that while his father Keshwar Gope had been to the field, where ground nuts had been grown, he noticed Sirista Gope and Mahendra Gope uprooting the ground nuts from the field. It was alleged that on resistance made by Keshwar Gope, they along with others grappled with Keshar Gope and assaulted him by fists and slaps and also with hard and blunt substance. After the villagers reached, his father could be rescued. It was alleged that after his father was taken to his house, the appellants came holding arms, pursuant to which, on exhortation made by Faudari Gope, Sirista Gope fired a shot on his father when the latter sustained injury in his left thigh and dropped to the ground. It is alleged that when he came for rescue of his father, he too sustained fire arm injury at the hands of Faudari Gope. It was alleged that the appellants while retiring, also took recourse to firing when Prasadi too sustained fire arm injury at the hands of Mahendra Gope. After the police was set in motion, investigation commenced and in course of investigation the police officer recorded statement of witnesses, got the injured examined by the doctor, inspected place of occurrence and on its conclusion laid chargesheet before the court. The appellants along with others, on being committed to the court of sessions, were eventually put on trial and in the eventual trial, that commenced, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses which include the injured and also some formal witnesses. The defence too examined one Kamal Nath Sinha, an Advocate at District Bar, Nalanda, who stated to have identified the deponent who had sworn an affidavit. 2. Now adverting to the evidences placed on the record, I find that Ram Ratan Singh P.W. 1 was a formal witness and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Dukhi Yadav P.W. 2 turned volte face to the prosecution and his attention was drawn to the early version which he rendered before the police. Keshar Yadav P.W. 3 happened to be the father of the informant and also the injured. Dukhi Yadav P.W. 2 turned volte face to the prosecution and his attention was drawn to the early version which he rendered before the police. Keshar Yadav P.W. 3 happened to be the father of the informant and also the injured. He stated that while Sirista Gope and Mahendra Gope were uprooting the ground nuts from the field, he resisted them, pursuant to which they along with others, assaulted him, and after he was going with his son, the appellants along with others intercepted them, when on exhortation made by Faudari Gope, Sirista Gope fired shot at him causing injury in his left thigh and when Jhopri Gope came for his rescue, he too sustained injury at the hands of Faudari Gope on his left hand and also left thigh. Prasadi Gope too sustained injury with fire arm, when Mahendra Gope took recourse to firing. All the injured went to Hospital where they were treated. Attention of this witness was drawn towards early version rendered before police by the defence, on material particulars of the case, about the appellants being assailants of the injured. Similar was the case with Prasadi P.W. 5. Though he too made coherent statement as that of P.W. 3 about Keshar Gope sustaining fire arm injury at the hands of Sirista Gope, and Jhopri Gope sustaining fire arm injury at the hands of Faudari Gope and Mahendra Gope causing fire arm injury to Prasadi Gope. Attention of this witness too was drawn by the defence to his early version rendered before the police, about the appellants being the assailants of the injured. Though narrations made by Jhopri Gope P.W. 4 was reiteration of his early version made before the police, his attention too was drawn by the defence. 3. Dr. J. Prasad Sinha P.W. 6 stated to have examined Jhopri Gope when he noticed lacerated wounds on left forearm, left palm and also on left thigh with inverted margin. Pillet was extracted from injury no. 2 and the injuries on the person of Jhopri Gope, in the estimation of the doctor were caused by fire arms, though they were simple in nature. The doctor stated to have examined on that day, also Keshar Gope and noticed multiple lacerated wounds on his person with inverted margin. The doctor stated to have extracted three pillets from injury no. The doctor stated to have examined on that day, also Keshar Gope and noticed multiple lacerated wounds on his person with inverted margin. The doctor stated to have extracted three pillets from injury no. 1 and all these injuries, in estimation of the doctor, though were simple in nature, were caused by fire arm. The doctor stated to have examined also Prasadi Gope and noticed lacerated wound on his person which was simple in nature caused by fire arm. 4. Dichha Narain Singh P.W. 7 was a formal witness and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, and the trial court, while finding Boudhu Gope, Ram Prasad Gope, Bhosu Gope and Krishna Gope not guilty of the charges, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and also 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each on both counts with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 5. The finding recorded by trial court is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants on premises that as on same set of evidence some accused persons who were put on trial were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, on parity, the appellants too deserve exoneration of the charges. Contentions were raised that though P.Ws. 3 and 5 had been making coherent statement as that of P.W. 4, their attentions were drawn by the defence to impeach the testimonies, as no such statement about the appellants being assailants of the individual injured were ever made before the police. The police officer who recorded statement, it is urged, was not examined at trial and hence credibility of two witnesses were open to be questioned. It is sought to be urged that similar was the case with evidence of Jhopri P.W. 4 whose attention too was drawn by the defence, but as the Police Officer was not examined at trial, narrations made by him suggesting the appellants to be assailants had to be credited for non-examination of the Police Officer who recorded his statement. However, P.Ws. However, P.Ws. 3 and 5 happened to be the stamped witnesses, they having suffered injuries on their persons during the incident and there was no good reason to disbelieve their testimonies. Since the Police Officer was not examined at trial, I do feel that many questions remained unanswered. I took strain to take into consideration the statement of two witnesses made before the police and found that they had made omnibus accusation about the injured having suffered injuries on their persons during the incident, without making explicit attribution against the appellants to be the assailants of an individual injured, and rightly on these premises, evidences of P.Ws. 3 and 5 did not merit consideration to judge the culpability of the appellants. However, so far evidence of Jhopri Gope, P.W. 4 was concerned, it would appear from the tenor of the first information report that detailed narrations of the incident about assailants and also injured had been made by him in his fardbeyan and hence there was no good reason to draw his attention by the defence, and that apart, the narrations made by Jhopri Gope P.W. 4 find ample corroboration from the finding recorded by the doctor who noticed lacerated wounds on the injured and stated to have extracted pillets from the wounds. Even on not taking into consideration the evidences of P.Ws. 3 and 5, I find that the evidence of Jhopri Gope and the finding recorded by the doctor do amply suggest the appellants to be the assailants and the finding recorded by the trial court under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act did not merit interference. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the prosecution was launched against them in the year 1978 and it is about efflux of 24 years, that the hearing of the appeal of the appellants had been taken by the Court. It is urged that the appellants had suffered mental agony of protracted trial for about 24 years and even they have remained for some period as undertrial prisoner. 6. Taking into consideration the sub-missions canvassed at bar, while upholding the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them and in addition to that, the individuals appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6. Taking into consideration the sub-missions canvassed at bar, while upholding the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them and in addition to that, the individuals appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) on each count and in default, they would suffer simple imprisonment for five months on each count and with these modifications in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.