Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 4.7.77 the appellant came to the shop of the informant Raj Kishore Singh who was Manager of the Khadi Bhanda, at Amnour Bazar. The appellant has earlier made purchase of cloth on credit worth Rs. 100/-. The informant demanded money. It has been alleged that the appellant told him that the payment would be made at his house, if he would come to his house. The informant closed the Khadi Bhandar at 6.30 P.M. and left for his house. He went to the house of the appellant where he met Kariman, nephew of the appellant. Thereafter he met the appellant and he demanded the money but the appellant did not make payment. It has been further alleged that the appellant took him to the orchard where Kariman was already present there and he inflicted two blows on his shoulder and left hand with Phasuli. The appellant also aimed Phasuli on him which caused injury on his right hand. One Deo Nath Ram who whipped out a dagger and wanted to inflict injury on him. The informant raised alarm, witnesses came there and the accused persons fled away. The informant injured was taken to Amnaur Hospital where he was admitted and was treated by the doctor. The statement of the informant injured was recorded at Amnaur Hospital on 5.7.77 and on the basis of his statement first information report was registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 1 is Mokhtar Singh. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 is Dinanath Ram, P.W. 3 is Kaushal Kishore Singh, P.W. 4 is Braj Madhaw Singh and P.W. 5 is Raj Kishore Singh, the informant himself. The medical officer and the investigating officer have not been examined. 4. P.W. 5, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. P.W. 2 is Dinanath Ram, P.W. 3 is Kaushal Kishore Singh, P.W. 4 is Braj Madhaw Singh and P.W. 5 is Raj Kishore Singh, the informant himself. The medical officer and the investigating officer have not been examined. 4. P.W. 5, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his Fardbeyan. According to him the appellant was known to him from before and used to purchase clothes from his Khadi Bhandar were he was Manager. The appellant had purchased clothes on credit worth Rs. 100/-. on 4.7.77. He came to his shop and he asked for money which he had taken from him. The appellant replied that you come to my house and then the payment will be made. Accordingly he went to the house of the appellant from where he was taken to an orchard and was assaulted by the appellant and his nephew. He raised alarm, villagers came and he was taken to Amnaur State Dispensary where he was treated and his statement was recorded by the Police. The other witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have also supported and corroborated the version of the informant, P.W. 1 who has been declared hostile, has supported the factum of occurrence. Though the doctor who had treated the informant was not examined but the injury report has been exhibited (marked Ext. 3) and according to the injury report the injured informant had sustained four injuries on his person. According to Ext. 3, except injury no. 4 all the injuries were grievous in nature and injury no. 1 was also dangerous to life. 5. On appreciation of evidence adduced the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant took the informant in the orchard and inflicted Phasuli blow on his person and his nephew also inflicted Phasuli blows on his shoulder. The injury report also corroborates the injuries sustained by the informant. As such, the court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the court below. 6. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in 1977 about 24 years ago and the appellant has been amply harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the court below. 6. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in 1977 about 24 years ago and the appellant has been amply harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation. It has been also submitted that there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against him and he also remained in jail for some time. Having regard to the submission so raised that the appellant has gone through mental strain and financial crisis lasting for two decades, in my view, it will not be proper to send him again in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Therefore, it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by him within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine the substantive sentence passed by the court below shall stand restored automatically. The amount of fine if and when realised, shall be paid to the informant, Raj Kishore Singh (P.W. 5). With the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed.