JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals (Cr. Appeal 189 of 1997 and 198 of 1997) arose out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1989, whereby and where under the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih held the appellants of both the appeals guilty under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for one month. All the appellants have further been found guilty under Sections 147 and 323, IPC and they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and appellant Laxmi (Lachhami) Sonar is further held guilty under Section 313. IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to further undergo S.I. for six months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Bishnu Devi gave a fradbeyan before the S.I. of Giridih (Town) P.S. in Sadar hospital at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening on Sunday to the effect that on 9.3.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. that on previous Friday at about 8-9 a.m. she-goat of Bhuneshwar Sharma went to the field of the informant and damaged wheat crops and she-goat was driven out from the field by her owners son. Whereupon Bhuneshwar Sharma used abusive language against the informant, whereupon she protested as to why he is abusing her. Thereafter Bhuneshwar assaulted the informant and her daughter-in-law. Quarrel was started by her son. Next day on Friday at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning, all accused persons came there and assaulted the informant and her daughter-in-law with an intention to kill them. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case under Sections 452/323/147/313, IPC was registered and police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 452/323/147/313, IPC. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions, where charges were framed and the learned Court. below recorded the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions, where charges were framed and the learned Court. below recorded the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW 1 is Sabia Devi PW 2 is Chhatu Sao. PW 3 is Dharama Sao. PW 4 is doctor, who examined the injured PW 5 is informant and PW 6 is a formal witness and PW 7 is Kaushalya Devi, who was also assaulted. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses have been examined. They are Shiv Narayan Pandey (DW 1) and Jugdish Mandal (DW 2). 4. PW 1 is Sabia Devi. She is the wife of the injured Chhattu Sao. She has supported the prosecution case. This witness has stated that all the appellants entered her house armed with lathi and chhura and started assaulting the persons. She has specifically stated that Kaushalya Devi was assaulted by Bhuneshwar Sonar Laxmi Sonar and Rupan Sonar. She was assaulted by Sudhir and Govind Sonar. She has also stated that as to how others were assaulted by them. She has further stated that on the previous Friday, she-goat of Bhuneshwar Sonar was grazing wheat crop over which, there was exchange of abuse, etc. She and others were referred to Sariya hospital, where they were treated and from there, they were referred to Giridih hospital. 5. PW 2 is Chhatu Sao. He is the injured witness. He was in his house at about 6.00 a.m., when appellants came there and sat on the abdomen of Kaushalya Devi and pressed it. 6. PW 3 is son of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that he had gone to the house of Bhuneshwar Sonar and informed him about the incident. He requested him to settle the matter after holding a panchayati and while he was returning he met Rupan Sonar and requested him not to go anywhere as they were ready to settle the matter, upon which appellant Rupan Kumar abused him and chased him. This fact was also narrated to appellant Bhuneshwar Sonar that a panchayati will be held in the matter but he too abused him. This fact was also narrated to appellant Bhuneshwar Sonar that a panchayati will be held in the matter but he too abused him. When he returned home appellant Bhuneshwar Sonar with a lathi in hand chased him to assault and entered his house. When Kaushalya Devi (PW 7) reached there, she was also assaulted by accused persons. Due to this very action of the appellants, her three months pregnancy was terminated. He went to the P.S. and brought police. Thus, he has fully supported the prosecution case. 7. PW 4 is Dr. Narayan Prasad, who examined the injured Bishni Devi and found the following injuries : "1. One stitched injury on head 1" length. 2. One stitched injury on head 1" length. 3. One swelling on left knee 3" x 2". 4. One swelling on the dorsal 3" x 3". 5. One bruise on the left side of left thigh 4" x 2". 6. One swelling on right part on dorsal side 3" x 2" According to opinion of the doctor, all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and injuries are simple in nature." 8. On the same day the doctor examined Kaushalya Devi and found the following injuries ; "1. Twelve scratch injuries on left cheek each 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep. 2. one lenear scratch on left cheek 1 1/2" x 1/8" x skin deep. 3. Three scratch injuries on left shoulder each 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep. 4. one swelling on the left chest 3" x 2". 5. One swelling on the abdomen 3" x 2". According to the opinion of the doctor, all injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury No. 5 may be caused by pressing with leg on the abdomen. All other injuries may be caused by lathi. Nature of injuries are simple. Age of injuries were more than 48 hours. In paragraph 3 doctor has opined that there was bleeding per vagina. Later on one growing foetus of about 31/2 months size was expelled out of the uterus through vagina and it was caused due to injury No. 5 of victim Kaushila Devi and the same was caused due to hard and blunt substance." 9. PW 5 is the informant of the case. She has supported the prosecution case and stated the names of the appellants. PW 5 is the informant of the case. She has supported the prosecution case and stated the names of the appellants. She stated that accused persons entered into her house and assaulted her as well as her daughter-in-law Kaushalya Devi. According to this witness. Kaushalya Devi (PW 7) was assaulted and her abdomen was pressed by the appellants and PWs 1 and 2 were also assaulted. 10. PW 6 is a formal witness. 11. PW 7 is Kaushalya Devi. According to this witness, appellant Laxmi Sonar sat on her abdomen and pressed it and then appellants assaulted her and due to pressing her abdomen by Laxmi Sonar, blood started oozing out from her private part as she was carrying pregnancy and due to the aforesaid assault, it caused miscarriage. On this piece of evidence, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge. Giridih held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 12. The defence has examined two witnesses namely, Shiv Narayan Pandey and Jagdish Mandal and they have come to say that no occurrence, alleged, has taken place. Some documents have been referred on behalf of the defence such as Ext. A, which is an observation made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Giridih while disposing of the bail petition No. 370/86. 13. Some other points were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant such as FIR has not been properly registered etc. and ultimately the learned counsel submitted that the case is of the year 1986 and since more than 18 years, the appellants have faced the rigours of trial, hence a lenient view may be taken in the matter. 14. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State and after going through the records, I find that case was initially registered under the section, which is bailable in nature and thereafter charge sheet was submitted under Section 313, IPC besides other sections, but considering the fact that 18 years have elapsed and Laxmi Sonar, who is mainly responsible for the offence under Section 313, IPC has already remained in custody for some time, although he has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. 15. 15. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the case is of the year 1986 and more than 18 years have elapsed, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the period of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants in jail.