Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Though the prosecution was launched against the three persons including the appellant, as the appellant jumped bail on 1st August, 1985, while his bail was cancelld and his case was split up from the parent record, case of two others were committed to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1985. Thereafter, when appellant was remanded from other case, the case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions on 5th September, 1985. Since two Sessions Trials bearing Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1985 and other Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1985 had been running parallel by order dated 7th May, 1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1985, the Sessions Judge directed for analogous trial of both sessions trial bearing Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1985 and Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1985. Pursuant to that five witnesses were examined by the State during the period from 7th May, 1987 to 17th November, 1987. This was not the end of the chapter, when case of the appellant suffered chequered career, as again when appellant jumped bail, his bail was cancelled on 26th September, 1989 and he was declared absconder under Section 219, Cr PC and there is no gainsaying the fact that on 19th September, 1992 Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1988 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1985 was disposed of when both Suresh Yadav and Bijay Yadav were acquitted. The record shows that the appellant who again remanded in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1985 on 12th November, 1992 and since evidences were led in presence of the appellant during the period from 7th May, 1987 to 17th November, 1987, when he was in custody, the trial Judge on consideration of those evidences, recorded finding of guilt both under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, and while for the first count, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, for the second count, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years with a rider that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. 2. Though narrations made by witnesses have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, a brief resume of them can be discussed with all brevity to appreciate the contentions raised. Though both Mahesh Prasad Singh, PW 1 and Raja Ram Prasad, PW 2, had exhibited ignorance about contents of the seizure memo, they had acknowledged their signatures on them and it is not expected that they would put their signatures without knowing contents of the seizure memo. Wasi Uddin, PW 3, had stated that simply he laid chargesheet before the Court without making any contribution to the investigation. Reiterating his earliest version, Shiv Narayan Singh, PW 5, stated to have laid a tap on tip off near Ganesh Cold Storage when he suffered splinter injury due to lobbing of bomb by the miscreants. However, shortly thereafter while others managed good their escape, the appellant along was caught. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, PW 4, who examined Shiv Narayan Singh, constable No. 19, noticed lacerated wound with burnt margin on the front of left leg. There was also two abrasions on the right led. However, both the injuries were considered to be simple in nature caused by explosive substance. This is all the evidences that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 3. Contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant that though prosecution alleges about seizure of incriminating objects from the place of occurrence, those accusations are negatived, if evidences of PWs 1 and 2 were taken into consideration and for that I have assigned reasons for not accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 about they having signed document without going through its contents. There has been evidence of Shiv Narayan Singh, PW 5, about apprehension of the appellant and also he having sustained injuries from splinters of bomb allegedly lobbed by the miscreants, and there has been corroborating finding of the doctor also which would appear from evidence of PW 4. 4. There has been evidence of Shiv Narayan Singh, PW 5, about apprehension of the appellant and also he having sustained injuries from splinters of bomb allegedly lobbed by the miscreants, and there has been corroborating finding of the doctor also which would appear from evidence of PW 4. 4. Referring to remand order dated Ist October, 1981 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, learned counsel would urge that though prosecution alleges that the appellant too had suffered injury due to explosion of bomb lobbed by him, appellant on his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate had expressed his grievance about maltreatment by the Police Officers and having suffered injury due to assault by them, and the doctor too who examined him had noticed corresponding injury on his person. However, it would appear that since appellant had a grievance about sustaining injury by the Police pursuant to his apprehension, he also expressed desire before the Chief Judicial Magistrate For launching prosecution against the Police Officers for assault on him. It does not appear from the record, as well as noticed by the trial Judge that the appellant did not take recourse to such action. I do not wish to comment on this score any more. Be that as it may, there has been evidence of Pw 5 on the record which seeks corroboration from the evidence of the doctor also. However, one redeeming feature of the appellants case as has been highlighted at bar was that for a total period of more than four years, the appellant has remained in custody either during the period of investigation, trial or post conviction period. 5. In the circumstances, while finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is upheld, in the facts and circumstances and also that the appellant has suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for more than twenty years, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, and with this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification.