JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2003 and 2.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court III, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 340 of 1992 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for committing the offences under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for a period of 7 years. 2. All the three appellants were charged for committing the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having intentionally causing the death of Kameshwar Mishtri in furtherance of their common intention on 26th Nov. 1991. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 26.11.1991 at about 6 a.m. while the informant, Bishuni Mishtri (since dead) was in his house, he heard the sound of lathi blows and then he came out and saw that his son Kameshwar Mishtri was being assaulted with lathi by the appellants. Ram Prasad Mishtri, Shambhu Mishtri and Prabhu Mishtri on his head due to which his son had received injuries and then he fell down unconscious. It is said that when the informant tried to pick up his son. Kameshwar, the appellant No. 1, Ram Prasad Mishtri assaulted him with lathi due to which he received injury on his head. On "hullah" being raised, several co-villagers, Kapil Dubey (PW 5) (Hostile), Virendra Mehta (PW 3), Anuj Mishtri (PW 6) (Hostile) assembled there and saw the occurrence. It was said that Kameshwar was assaulted by the appellants with lathi with an intention to kill. 4. The prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses. Out of whom, PW 1, is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased PW 2 is Malti Devi, has appeared as an eye-witness. PW 3 is Birendra Prasad Mehta. PW 4 is Lalmani Devi, she is widow of the deceased and is said to be an eyewitness. PW 5 is Kapildeo Dubey, and PW 6 have been declared hostile. PW 7 is a formal witness. The informant could not be examined in this case, as during the trial he died then Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. PW 5 is Kapildeo Dubey, and PW 6 have been declared hostile. PW 7 is a formal witness. The informant could not be examined in this case, as during the trial he died then Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. Prom the evidence of PW 1 (Doctor), it appears that the deceased had received altogether seven injuries, which are as follows : (I) Lacerated wound 2-1 /2" x 3/4" x bone deep left side of the scalp. (II) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" bone deep back of head (occipital region) (III) Bruise 1-1/2" x 1/2" on lateral aspect of left upper arm. (IV) Bruise 1-1/2" x 1/2" on dorsal of left wrist. (V) Abression 1/2" x 1/4" below knee joint. (VI) Abression 1/4" x 1/4" right leg above ankle. (VII) Abression 1 /2" x lineral lateral aspect of left leg. Out of them five injuries were bruise and two injuries were lacerated wound on the head. The Doctor found on discretion that there was linear fracture of left parietal bone and in his opinion, she cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injury Nos. 1 and 2, which were found to be lacerated. 6. PW 2 Malti Devi, who has appeared as an eye-witness, has stated that she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased, Kameshwar Mishtri by means of "lathi PW 3, is Birendra Prasad Mehta. His evidence is of no avail, as he did not appear for cross-examination by the defence. PW 4, Lalmani Devi (widow of the deceased) is an eye-witness and she has stated that when her husband was assaulted by the appellants on his head, he fell down. PWs 5 and 6 have been declared hostile and PW 7 is a formal witness, who proved Ext. 3. Therefore, it appears that PWs 2 and 4 are the material witnesses and they have corroborated the statements of each other. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that though PWs 2 and 4 have appeared as eye-witness to the occurrence, but their statement cannot be believed because in the FIR they have not been figured as eye-witnesses. 8. PW 2, Malti Devi and PW 4, Lalmani Devi have specifically stated in their cross-examination that they were interrogated by the police and they had stated that they had been the occurrence. 8. PW 2, Malti Devi and PW 4, Lalmani Devi have specifically stated in their cross-examination that they were interrogated by the police and they had stated that they had been the occurrence. Only because that their names were not mentioned in the FIR as the eye-witnesses, it cannot be said that they had not seen the occurrence. 9. The evidence of PWs 2 and 4, is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 (doctor), who held post-mortem examination of the deceased and found altogether seven injuries on the person of the deceased. 10. According to the case of the prosecution, it appears that the assault was made by means of "lathi and "pawa" (leg) of chair. 11. Considering the evidence on record, mainly PW 2 and PW 4 read with the evidence of the doctor, PW 1, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellants guilty under Section 304-II, IPC. It appears that the appellants have already remained in custody for about three years, whereas the occurrence is of the year 1991, i.e. about 15 years back, therefore, in my view, since the appellants have already remained in custody for about three years and therefore, they have sufficiently been punished. Accordingly, the sentence of seven years awarded to the appellants by the trial Court, is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellant No. 1, Ram Prasad Mishtri, is on bail and as such, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Prabhu Mishtri and Shambhu Mishtri, are in custody and as such they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in other case(s). 12. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.