Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellants nos.1 to 13, 15 & 16 have been convicted under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 each and in default of fine they will have to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week. The appellant no. 14 Mahesh Mahto @ Majnu Mahto has been convicted under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. He was further convicted under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years. 2. The prosecution Case, in short, is that on 7.9.1984 at about 6.00 A.M. the informant was coming from Bidupur Railway Station to his house. When he reached near the southern corner of Gangti Bridge, he saw that four accused persons namely, Gopi Das, Jawahir Das, Pathal Das and Dindayal Das were assaulting Kumud Kumar with fists and kicks after pulling him down. The informant came to rescue him on that the accused Gopi Das accousted his companions that the informant should also be taken to task. On which the informant raised alarm and accused Gopi Das also called out his men from his Basti. The other accused persons came there armed with lathi and they alt began to assault the informant with lathi. On alarm witnesses, Ramsohit Thakur, Vijay Thakur, Harinath Thakur, Mahesh Sharma, Gopal Krishna Sharma and Kashi Thakur came there. It is alleged that Mahesh Mahto @ Majnu Mahto took out a country made pistol from his waist and fired it at the informant in order to kill him which hit his left arm. Thereafter the accused persons fled away to their houses. It is alleged that the reason for the occurrence was that on last Wednesday accused Din Dayal was plucking the dried wood from the branches of a tree stealthily from the orchard of Kumud Kumar and for that there was a quarrel between Kumud and Dindayal. The another reason was that the accused Mahesh Mahto used to commit mischief with the crops of the field of informant which was near his house. It is further alleged that after the occurrence the witnesses brought informant and Kumud on a tempo to Block Hospital, Bidupur where they were admitted and treated by Doctor. Bidupur Police Officer went there and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and thereafter F.I.R. was registered. 3. It is further alleged that after the occurrence the witnesses brought informant and Kumud on a tempo to Block Hospital, Bidupur where they were admitted and treated by Doctor. Bidupur Police Officer went there and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and thereafter F.I.R. was registered. 3. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. The prosecution in support of its Case examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Dharm Nath Singh, he is a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R. and the signature of Investigating Officer (Ext. 1), P.W. 2 is Kumud Kumar Sharma, injured. P.W. 3 is Gopal Krishna Sharma. P.W. 4 is Ramadhar Sharma, the informant of this case. P.W. 5 is Vijay Kumar Sharma. P.W. 6 is Harenath Thakur. P.W. 7 is Ramsohit Thakur. P.W. 8 is Kashi Nath Thakur. P.W. 9 is Dr. Gautam Singh Vir. P.W. 10 is Shivshankar Thakur, he is I.O. of this Case and P.W. 11 is Dr. G.S. S\ngh who has examined the informant. 6. P.W. 2 Kumud Kumar Sharma has stated that he was going to Bidupur Railway Station. When he reached near the southern corner of Gangti Bridge, four accused persons, namely, Gopi Das, Pathal Das, Jawahir Das and Dindayal Das after pushing him down began to assault with fists and slaps and at that time Ramadhar Sharma arrived there who was coming from Station side and when he came at his rescue the accused Gopi told them that he should also be taken to task and he called out the persons of his locality and all the accused came there armed with lathi and began to assault Ramadhar Sharma. He raised alarm and witnesses came there. He has further stated that Mahesh @ Majnu took out his country made pistol and fired at Ramadhar which hit his left arm causing injury. He has also stated that the accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. He has given the reason of the occurrence that on 5.9.84 Dindayal Das was plucking the dried wood from the branches of mango tree of Kumud Kumar. He reached there and made protest. Due to that the present occurrence took place. He has also stated that the accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. He has given the reason of the occurrence that on 5.9.84 Dindayal Das was plucking the dried wood from the branches of mango tree of Kumud Kumar. He reached there and made protest. Due to that the present occurrence took place. According to him, he and Ramadhar were taken to Bidupur Hospital where they were admitted. In his cross-examination he has stated that there was a counter Case in which he and Ramadhar were made accused. 7. P.W. 3 is Gopal Krishna Sharma, a Homeopath practitioner. He has stated in his evidence that at the relevant time he was going to his clinic which is at Bidupur Railway Station. According to him, when he reached near the Gangti Bridge, he saw that four accused persons were beating Kumud and Ramadhar. He has also stated that he heard the sound of firing. He has been declared hostile. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was examined before the I.O. of this Case and stated before the Police in his evidence that four accused persons, Pathal Das, Jawahir Das, Gopi Das and Dindayal Das were beating Kumud by fists and slaps. He has also stated that he had named some accused persons before the Police and has attributed that they had assaulted Ramadhar Sharma and Mahesh Mahto took out a country made pistol from his waist and fired at Ramadhar with a view to kill him but the gun shot injured the left arm of Ramadhar Sharma. He has also stated before the Police that both Kumud and Ramadhar were taken to Bidupur Hospital in a tempo. 8. P.W. 4 is Ramadhar Sharma. He has supported the prosecution version as well as the version of RW. 2. According to him, he was coming from Bidupur Railway Station and when he reached near the southern corner of Gangti Bridge, he saw four accused persons were assaulting Kumud with fists and slaps and when he came to rescue him accused Gopi Das told that he should also be taken to task and he called out his persons from his locality. The rest accused persons came there having lathi in their hands and began to assault him. Thereafter accused Mahesh @ Majnu took out a country made pistol and fired at him. 9. P.Ws. The rest accused persons came there having lathi in their hands and began to assault him. Thereafter accused Mahesh @ Majnu took out a country made pistol and fired at him. 9. P.Ws. 5 and 6 both have partially supported the prosecution version regarding the assault on Kumud by fists and slaps. 10. P.W. 7 Ram Sohit Thakur has stated that he was going from his house towards Station in the morning. He heard hulla coming from Gangti Bridge. When he went there he saw Ramadhar and Kumud had fallen down and lying on ground and saw other persons were having lathi in their hands and they were fleeing away. He has been declared hostile. 11. P.W. 8 is Kashi Nath Thakur. He has supported the version of the informant. He has stated that all the accused persons were assaulting Kumud with fists and slaps and thereafter they fled away. While they were going also fired a shot. He has stated that he has identified all the accused persons. 12. P.W. 9 is Dr. Gautam Singh Vir. According to him, on 7.9.84 he was posted as Civil Assistant surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hajipur and on that day X-ray of Ramadhar Sharma was done in Vaishali X-ray Centre, Hajipur. The X-ray of his left arm was taken in his presence and it showed a pellet shadow over the junction of the lower 2/3 and upper 1/3 of the radius. According to him, the X-ray was done in his supervision by X-ray Technician and the report is in his pen and his signature which was marked Ext. 3 and the plate has been marked as material Ext. 1. 13. P.W. 10 is Shiv Shankar Thakur, the I.O. of this case. He has stated that he had gone to Bidupur Hospital in.connection with the investigation of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 15/84 and he found Ramadhar Sharma and Kumud in that hospital in injured condition. He recorded the statement of Ramadhar Sharma and instituted a Police Case upon his statement. He has stated that he investigated the case and submitted chargesheet and give the full description of the place of occurrence. 14. P.W. 11 is Dr. G.S. Singh who has examined the informant. According to him on 7.4.84 he was posted at Medical Primary Health Centre, Bidupur. He has stated that he investigated the case and submitted chargesheet and give the full description of the place of occurrence. 14. P.W. 11 is Dr. G.S. Singh who has examined the informant. According to him on 7.4.84 he was posted at Medical Primary Health Centre, Bidupur. He examined injured Kumud Kumar Sharma and found the following injuries on his person: I. Swelling and tenderness on both side caused by hard blunt substance. It may be caused by lathi. II. Lacerated wound on the left ear. It was caused by hard blunt substance which may be caused by lathi or fists. III. Swelling and tenderness on left thigh. It was 2" x 2" caused by hard blunt substance. It may be caused by lathi. According to the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries were simple in nature aged about 2 to 3 hours of examination. On the same day he also examined Ramadhar Sharma, injured and found the following injuries on his person: I. Multiple wound of peanut size lateral aspect of fore arm in the middle. The wound was lacerated and emitting gunpowder smell. The injuries were X-rayed at Vaishali X-ray Centre vide Plate No. 536 on 7.9.84. From X-ray plate it is clear that one pellet was present over the junction of lower two third and upper one third of radius. II. Lacerated wound on right index- finger. III. (a) Stiff dis-location swelling on right elbow of 2" x 1". (b) Swelling of 1" x 1" on right arm. IV. Swelling and tenderness of 2" x 1" on both thigh. V. Swelling and tenderness on left side back. It was in 2" x 1". 15. According to the opinion of the doctor injury no. 1 was caused by fire arm by gun shot injury, pellet and X-ray report were sent to the Police after removing the pellet from the wound. Injury nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by hard blunt substance as such lathi. According to him injury nos. 1,2,3(b),4 and 5 were simple in nature and injury no. 3(a) was grievous aged within 2 to 3 hours of examination. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the witnesses examined in this case are related to each other. No independent witness has been examined, although some of the persons were present at the place of occurrence. 1,2,3(b),4 and 5 were simple in nature and injury no. 3(a) was grievous aged within 2 to 3 hours of examination. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the witnesses examined in this case are related to each other. No independent witness has been examined, although some of the persons were present at the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that mandatory provision of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C. has not been considered by the Court below. The entire finding of the Court below is based on mechanical consideration of the evidence. 17. The submission of learned counsel is that no independent witness has been examined and all the witnesses are related to the informant. The witnesses examined were injured ones and were present at the pjace of occurrence, as such they are the most competent and natural witnesses. Their testimony cannot be discarded only because they are related to the informant. So far the submission of learned counsel is that the mandatory provision of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code has not been considered but from the perusal of judgment it appears that the previous antecedent of the appellants were not good, as such this benefit was not given to the appellants. 18. The learned Court below after considering and appreciating the evidence of the witnesses has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the appellant Mahesh Mahto @ Majnu for the offence under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The other appellants were also rightly convicted under Sec.323 IPC. 19. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction is upheld. 20. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place on 7.9.1984 i.e. 23 years ago as such they have been sufficiently punished and harassed during the long litigation and inordinate delay in disposal of the trial. As such some lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence to the appellants. Since the learned Court below has taken very lenient view so far the appellants no. 1 to 13, 15 and 16 are concerned. It does not require any consideration on the point of sentence. They do not deserve any consideration on the point of sentence. As such some lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence to the appellants. Since the learned Court below has taken very lenient view so far the appellants no. 1 to 13, 15 and 16 are concerned. It does not require any consideration on the point of sentence. They do not deserve any consideration on the point of sentence. They are ordered to deposit the fine so imposed forthwith. 21. So far the appellant Mahesh Mahto @" Majnu is concerned, the occurrence took place 23 years ago and he has been sufficiently punished and harassed and he has also remained in jail for some time, it would not be proper to send him again in jail custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence after such a long time. In my view, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of this appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in custody. 22. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence of appellant no. 14 this appeal is dismissed. 23. Since learned counsel Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, he will be paid his remuneration by the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, in accordance with law.