JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. I have hard Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned P.P.Assam. 2. This criminal appeal has been carried from the judgment and order dated 28.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 21(N)89 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304 Pt-II IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default rigorous imprisonment for another 2 months. 3. The prosecution case, as has been emerged from the impugned judgment, is that an ejaar was lodged on 10.7.1983 by the P.W.-1, Sri Nagendra Mandal alleging, inter alia, that in the morning at about 6 a.m. on 10.7.1983 the accused persons namely Ruhini Mandal (appellant), Sajani Mandal, Dukhini Mandal, Sri Dharnai Mandal, Sri Tarini Mandal, Sri Srinibash Mandal and some others armed with dao, lathi etc. attacked Dhanajoy Mandal who was ploughing his land along with his sons and daughters. As a result of such attack Dhanajoy Mandal and his son Durjoy Mandal suffered injuries. They were brought to the hospital for treatment. Latter on the injured Dhanajoy Mandal, after seven days of the incident succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Thereafter a case was registered under Section 147/148/149/447/325/326/302, IPC and the investigation was ensued. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 147/148/149/447/325/326/302, IPC was submitted against the appellant, Ruhini Mandal and three others namely Dukhini Mandal, Dadhiram Bhuyan and Srinibash Bhuyan. Dukhini Mandal expired before the commitment of the case to the Sessions Court. The trial Court, after hearing the parties framed charges under Section 302/324/34, IPC against the appellant, Srinibash Bhuyan and Dadhiram Bhuyan for causing death of Dhananjoy Mandal and cut injury to the person of Durjoy Mandal. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the P.W.-4, the sole witness and two medical officers, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8. The accused adduced two witnesses including the appellant himself and the Gaonburah, D.W.-2. On appreciation of the evidences of record as well as after haring the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, acquitting other accused as the offence against them was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence Mr. Banerjee, learned Sr. On appreciation of the evidences of record as well as after haring the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, acquitting other accused as the offence against them was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence Mr. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel has advanced argument mainly on two grounds. Firstly P.W.-4, Smti Bakuli Devi was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and as such the veracity of her evidence is questionable and on the basis of her sole testimony, the conviction cannot be upheld and secondly, the prosecution's failure to examine the vital witness of the incident i.e. Durjoy Mandol, brother of P.W.-4 and son of the deceased Dannjoy Mandal who was also injured, demolishes the prosecution case. 6. I have carefully gone through the material evidences on record as well as the impugned judgment. P.W.-1, Sri Nagendra Ch. Mandal who was the informant, deposed that he had come to know from one Aditya who was the son of deceased Dhanajoy Mondal and died later on, that his father and brother were assaulted by the accused persons. When he came to the place of occurrence, he found that both Dhanajoy Mandal and Durjoy Mandal lying injured in the paddy field. On being asked, both Dhananjoy Mandal and Durjoy Mandal told him that appellant Rohini Mandal, Dadhiram and one Srinibash assaulted them causing injuries. Dukhini was also present with them. 7. The sole eye witness of the incident was P.W.-4, Smti Bakuli Devi. She deposed that at the time of occurrence she was with her father (Dhananjoy) and brother (Durjoy). She went to the field in order to plant seedling and her father and brother carried seedling to the field. At that moment appellant, Dadhiram, Srinibash, Tarini and Rukhini attacked her father. All of them were armed with dao, spear, lathi etc. The appellant cut her father by dao. Dadhiram assaulted her brother by dao. Srinibash, Dukhini stabbed her father, as a result of which her fat`her fell down. The appellant Ruhini stabbed her father on the back. Seeing this she started hue and cry. There was none near the place of occurrence. She sent to her father at that time where he was lying in the mud. Her father suffered injuries on his back. Srinibash, Dukhini stabbed her father, as a result of which her fat`her fell down. The appellant Ruhini stabbed her father on the back. Seeing this she started hue and cry. There was none near the place of occurrence. She sent to her father at that time where he was lying in the mud. Her father suffered injuries on his back. Then she approached her brother as her also suffered cut injuries. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. After sometime Narayan and Hemanta came and they carried hre father and brother to hospital by a thela. 8. Dr. J.P. Hazarika, P.W.-7 examined the injuries of Dhananjoy Mandal. As per his deposition, the following injuries were found on the person of Dhananjoy - "A deep tranversed cut wound 12" across the 10th thoarsic vertabra exposing the lung. Vertabra and ribs are excised. Patint's condition poor, Pulse B.P. could not be recorded. The wound is grievous in nature caused by heavy sharp weapon." 9. After the death of Dhananjoy Mandal, post mortem was conducted on his body on 18.7.1983 by Dr. Sashi Dhar Goswami, P.W.-8. As per his deposition, he found the deceased with rigor mortis and emaciated condition showing transverse wound on the back, under stitches. Wound was of 11" length across the 10the thorasic vertabra". 5" on the right side and 6" on the left side. On opening the stitches, huge amount of puss came out of the wound and it was of 1" breadth. In his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to pyogenic plural and pulmonary infection following the ante mortem injury sustained. 10. Now coming to the first submission made on behalf of the appellant, on proper appreciation of the deposition of P.W.-3, Hem Kanta Mandal, it clearly appears that P.W.-4, the sole eyewitness witnesses, was present at the place of occurrence. In his deposition, P.W.-3, categorically deposed that after hearing hue and cry when he went to the place of occurrence he saw Dhananjoy and Durjoy lying injured and Bakuli, P.W.-4 daughter of Dhananjoy standing nearby. The evidence of this witness negated the contention of the learned Sr. counsel that P.W.-4 was not present at the time of occurrence. In his deposition, P.W.-3, categorically deposed that after hearing hue and cry when he went to the place of occurrence he saw Dhananjoy and Durjoy lying injured and Bakuli, P.W.-4 daughter of Dhananjoy standing nearby. The evidence of this witness negated the contention of the learned Sr. counsel that P.W.-4 was not present at the time of occurrence. As regards the second submission regarding non-examination of injured Durjoy, the son of the deceased Dhananjoy and brother of P.W.-4, this court is of the view that non-examination of the said injured person cannot discredit the prosecution case when the prosecution has already proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt solely relying on the evidence of P.W.-4 supported by medical evidence. This court does not find any contradictions or discrepancies as regards those evidences. The statement of P.W.-4 pertaining to the injury inflicted on the back of the person of the deceased has also been fully corroborated by the medical evidence which clearly shows that there was a deep transversed cut wound on the back side in the person of the deceased and the said wound was grievous caused by heavy sharp weapon. P.W.-4, in her deposition unmistakably stated that the said fatal blow was given by the appellant by a dao on the back of her father. 11. Besides, it candidly came in the evidence of P.W.-4 that at the relevant time of the incident there was none near the place of occurrence. Thus, the evidence of Smti Bakuli Devi, being the solitary eye witness cannot be discarded for want of any independent witness. On close inspection of the testimony of P.W. 4, her evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy. 12. That being the position, this court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under section 304 Pt-II finding him guilty for committing an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the aforesaid Section and accordingly the conviction of the appellant under section 304 Pt-II is upheld. 13. At this stage, Mr. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the appellant is an old man aged about 64 years and the incident took place in the year 1983 and as such considering the age of the petitioner as well as the date of occurrence, the period of sentence may be reduced. 13. At this stage, Mr. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the appellant is an old man aged about 64 years and the incident took place in the year 1983 and as such considering the age of the petitioner as well as the date of occurrence, the period of sentence may be reduced. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, the court is of the view that since the appellant is a senior citizen and the occurrence took place 21 years back, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 500 in default another one month R.I. I order accordingly. Bail Bond of the petitioner is hereby cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon within three months from today. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification of the sentence as indicated above. Send down the records immediately. Appeal dismissed