JUDGEMENT B.N. P. SINGH, J.:- Though appellant was charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he suffered conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. 2. The salient features of the prosecution case are that on 10th August, 1983 at about 6.00 P.M. while Kamda Kumari (P.W.6) had gone to purchase commodities from the market, the appellant dealt blows on her back and pressed her neck to put pressure on her parents to relinquish their claim over the land. She was, however, rescued by one Saheb Deyal Singh who was a passerby. She allegedly informed her mother, who too was assaulted by the appellant near the house of Sudarshan Singh who reprimanded him for his action. 3. The defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court had been denial of accusations attributed to him and his false implication due to land dispute persisting between the parties. At trial, the State examined altogether eight witnesses and while three of them had turned volte face to the State, Jamuna Prasad Jha, P.W.4, was tendered at trial. Md. Ishaque, P.W.7, who was Investigating Officer, did not record objective finding about there being marks of violence at the place of occurrence. The prosecution is now left with two witnesses namely, Shakuntala Sharma, P.W.1 and Kamda Kumari, P.W.6, who happened to be injured. The former, while reiterating her earliest version which she rendered before the Police to set the criminal law in motion, stated that she was informed about assault by her daughter, and shortly after she rushed to the house of Sudarshan Singh, she too was assaulted there by appellant. About assault, the witness states that she was thrashed on the ground by appellant who catching hold of her hair, also pressed her neck. As for assault, narrations in similar terms and veins were made also by Kamada Kumari. As for assault on her, she states that the appellant had pressed her neck. However, the doctor who examined Shakuntala Sharma and Kamada Kumari, who happens to be Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, P.W.8, noticed only abrasions on their persons. As for assault, narrations in similar terms and veins were made also by Kamada Kumari. As for assault on her, she states that the appellant had pressed her neck. However, the doctor who examined Shakuntala Sharma and Kamada Kumari, who happens to be Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, P.W.8, noticed only abrasions on their persons. There were abrasions on little finger and left knee on the person of Shakuntala Sharma and as for Kamada Kumari, doctor noticed abrasion on the back of left elbow with complain of pain in the chest and front of neck. All the injuries, in estimation of doctor, was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants highlights that since good number of witnesses, some of whom were suggested to be ocular, on the point of assault to both female members, had turned volte face to the State, the credibility of entire case was lost. That apart, it was urged that since there was land dispute between the parties, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out and the last argument canvassed at bar was that since occurrence took place in the year 1983 and more than two decades had elapsed and the appellant has suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for 20 years, these mitigating circumstances, deserve consideration while awarding sentence to the appellant, in case finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court is upheld by this Court. 5. Other noticeable features are that though Kamda Kumari is shown to have been assaulted near house of R.P. Gupta, she would state that no person from his house came out to the place of occurrence. Though there are some shops too, at the place of occurrence, the shops were not opened and hence possibility of others being eye witnesses did not appear to be probable. Though One Saheb Deyal singh who was shown to have rescued Kamada Kumari from assault of the assailant, had turned volte face to the State, it appears that though he narrated entire incident before the Police during investigation at trial which commenced after long time, he betrayed the prosecution. Since both female members happen to be stamped witnesses, and doctor too had recorded finding about injury on their persons, they cannot be discredited for want of corroboration from other witnesses. However, mitigating circumstances highlighted at bar cannot be lost sight of. Since both female members happen to be stamped witnesses, and doctor too had recorded finding about injury on their persons, they cannot be discredited for want of corroboration from other witnesses. However, mitigating circumstances highlighted at bar cannot be lost sight of. Since occurrence took place in the year 1983 and more than two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about two decades, while upholding finding of guilt recorded by Trial Court, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in custody, and in addition to that he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default of which, he would suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant shall deposit fine with the Court below within two months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.