Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. Appellant nos.1 and 5 have been convicted under sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further appellant no.5 has been convicted under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant nos.2 and 3 have been convicted under sec. 325 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Further appellant nos.1 and 4 have been convicted under sec. 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.7.1988 at about 8 P.M. when the informant was returning his village from Nawadah and reached near Bhuthi bridge situated between Gogan and Nimdarganj, the accused persons variously armed with pistol, iron rod, Chura and lathi came to him and threatened him to do away his life. Accused Ranjay Kumar and Anugrah Singh threw him down on the ground and accused Anil Kumar attempted to take out his eye by means of Chura. He also cut the ear of the informant with Chura. It has been further alleged that accused Ranjay Kumar and Anugrah Singh assaulted with iron rod and Danda and broke his teeth. Thereafter accused Umesh Singh deprived him of a wrist watch and golden ring worth Rs. 2100/- Accused Sudhir Singh deprived him of Rs. 8000/- in cash from his bag besides some Government papers. The witnesses accompanying the informant did not intervene because they were also assaulted to some extent. The informant was brought to Sadar Hospital Nawadah where he gave his Fardbeyan (Ext.2) Thereafter the formal F.I.R. was registered. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. 3. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.1 Birendra Prasad Singh, P.W.2 Shree Narayan Singh and P.W.3 islam, who claimed to be the eye witnesses. P.W.7 Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha and P.W.8 Naresh Kumar Sharma are the formal witnesses. P.W.4, Chandrika Prasad Singh, is the full brother of the informant. He is a hearsay witness. P.W.5, Satya Narayan Singh is the informant of this case. P.W.6, Bhirgesh Singh has been tendered for cross-examination. 5. P.W.5, Satya Narayan Singh, the informant- has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him on the day of occurrence he was returning with Bhirgesh Singh (P.W.6), Bhola Singh (P.W.1) and Shree Narayan Singh (P.W.2). He has further stated that when they reached near Bhuthi bridge the accused persons variously armed stopped them. The accused Ranjay Kumar and Anugrah Singh threw him down on the ground, accused Anil Kumar assaulted him with Chura and tried to take out his eye. Accused Ranjay Kumar and Anugrah Singh assaulted him with iron rod and lathi causing his teeth broken He has further stated that accused Umesh Singh took away his wrist watch and ring while accused Sudhir Singh took out his bag containing Rs. 8000/. in cash. He has further stated that his companions were also assaulted. When the witnesses came then the accused fled away. Thereafter he was taken to Nawadah hospital where his Fardbeyan was recorded and put his signature over it. 6. P.W.1, Birendra Prasad Singh and P.W.2, Shree Narayan Singh have also supported the version of the informant. According to them when they reached near Bhuthi bridge the accused persons stopped them and accused Anugrah Singh and Ranjay Kumar threw the informant down, accused Anil Singh cut his ear with Chura and tried to take out his eye. Accused Anugrah Singh and Ranjay Kumar assaulted him with iron rod and Danda causing the loss of his teeth and accused Umesh Singh took out his watch and right (sicring ?) while accused Sudhir Singh took out cash and paper from his bag. 7. P.W.4, Chandrika Prasad Singh is the full brother of the informant. He has said that on information of the occurrence he went to the place of occurrence and found the informant in unconscious condition. 7. P.W.4, Chandrika Prasad Singh is the full brother of the informant. He has said that on information of the occurrence he went to the place of occurrence and found the informant in unconscious condition. The witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 were there from whom he could know about the factum of occurrence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the time of occurrence and place of occurrence. He has further submitted that according to P.W.1 the occurrence as alleged has taken place at about 6.30 P.M. but P.Ws. 2 and 5 have stated that they saw the accused persons assembled at 8 P.M. when the appellants had surrounded him. It has been further submitted that the informant has stated that he was assaulted in the land of Dahu Mahton but in his Fardbeyan he has stated that he was assaulted at Bhuthi bridge. 9. Usually the villagers do not have exact idea of time, however the statement of P.W.1 indicates that it was getting dark when the occurrence took place. Their statement about the time is always general in nature. The other witnesses who are claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 2 and 4 have categorically stated that the occurrence took place at Bhuthi bridge at about 8 P.M. As such there is no discrepancy in timing of occurrence. Learned counsel has further submitted that in this case the Dr. and I.O. have not been examined which has prejudiced the case of the defence. The learned court below has discussed this in detail and has come to the right conclusion that in the factum of present case non-examination of I.O. has not prejudiced the case of defence. The prosecution exhibited the case diary in the case as well. The court also hold that since injury report was not disputed and doctor was dead and report was proved as non-examination of doctor did not prejudice the defence. There is nothing to disbelieve or discard the evidence of eye witnesses on the factum of occurrence. They have consistently supported the factum of occurrence. The learned court below on the appreciation of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the appellants. There is nothing to disbelieve or discard the evidence of eye witnesses on the factum of occurrence. They have consistently supported the factum of occurrence. The learned court below on the appreciation of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the appellants. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellans. 10. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place 19 years ago and the appellants have sufficiently been punished and harassed during the prolonged litigation and pending of the trial in the court below. It has been further submitted that the appellants have also remained in custody for about six months. As such some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentnece to the appellants. 11. Considiering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period they have already undergone. 12. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.