JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. All the four appellants were put on trial to face charges under Sections 147 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that they along with 3 to 4 unknown persons after forming unlawful assembly committed rioting and made an attempt to commit murder of the informant, Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla, PW 5. However, learned trial Court found the appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.5.1986 at about 9.15 p.m. while the informant, Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla, PW 5, was returning home from Purani Bazar and as soon as reached near the electric sub-station, the appellants and 3 to 4 unknown persons accosted him there and then the appellant, Prakash Ritolia, told him that he has to now face consequences for lodging a case against them and thereafter all the accused persons stated assaulting him with hockey sticks as a result of which, he sustained injuries over his right hand and both legs which started bleeding and when he raised alarms, his father and other people of Mohalla came over there and then the appellants and other unknown persons fled away. Thereafter the informant, Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla, PW 5, along with his father came to Dhanbad (Bank More) police station and gave his fardbeyan (Ext. 3), upon which a case was instituted under Sections 147, 342, 323 and 307 of- Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for investigation and in course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the injured examined by Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh, PW 4, who on examination found the following injuries: i. Swelling on the back of right elbow 2" x 2". ii. Swelling 2" x 2" on the right mid dorso ventral region. iii. Swelling 1 /4" x 1/4" on the lower dorsal region. iv. Bruise 4" x 2" on right thigh. v. Swelling 1/2" x 1/2" on left leg. vi. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right hand. 3. The doctor issued injury report (Ext. 2) with the opinion that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. iii. Swelling 1 /4" x 1/4" on the lower dorsal region. iv. Bruise 4" x 2" on right thigh. v. Swelling 1/2" x 1/2" on left leg. vi. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right hand. 3. The doctor issued injury report (Ext. 2) with the opinion that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. However, no opinion could be given regarding the nature of injuries, rather kept his opinion reserved awaiting X-ray. However, it appears from the judgment that the injuries were found to be simple in nature. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and accordingly the charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Of them, PW 5 is the informant, whereas PW 1 Ram Chandra Agarwalla is the father of the informant, who is an eye-witness. PW 2, Thakur Prasad and PW 3, Jag Lal Rabidas are other witnesses who claimed to have reached at the place of occurrence and saw the informant in injured condition but PW 2 could not identify the assailants, whereas PW 3 though saw the assailants assaulting the injured but could not identify the assailants by name, however, he seems to have identified two persons in the Court below. Other witnesses, namely, Sanjay Kumar, PW 6 was tendered for cross-examination, whereas Shyam Lal Agarwalla, PW 7 has been declared hostile. After closure of the prosecution case, the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of Cr PC about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them to which they denied. 5. The trial Court, having found the implicit reliance on the testimonies of the informant, PW 5, and his father PW 1, an eye-witness and the corroborative evidences including medical evidence, found the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with that, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 6. Being aggrieved with that, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that admittedly the informant, PW 5 and his father, PW 1, were inimical to the appellants as so many criminal cases were pending between them and, therefore, the trial Court should not have convicted the appellants on the basis of their testimonies particularly when not a single independent witness came forward to support the case of the prosecution, though the police had recorded the statements of some of the independent witnesses in course of investigation. Moreover, the medical evidence does not find corroboration with the ocular evidences, as according to the informant, PW 5, he was given not less than 20 to 22 hockey sticks blows but the doctor has found only six injures. Learned Counsel further submits that the trial Court while passing the order of conviction and sentence also took into consideration the certified copy of the judgment passed in different cases (Exts. 4 to 4/3) showing the appellants being convicted under different offences but in most of the cases, the appellants have been acquitted in appeal preferred by them. In this respect, it was submitted that those judgments of the previous conviction were having much bearing on the mind of the Court in coming to the conclusion which the Court should not have given much importance, as the false implication in a situation, where the parties are quite inimical to each other, cannot be ruled out and as such the impugned judgment and order is fit to be set aside. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I do find that the trial Court put implicit reliance on the testimonies of the informant, PW 5, as well as his father, PW 1, being an eye-witness, which was corroborated by the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and also by the medical evidence. The criticism made on behalf of the appellants that the Court below should not have relied on the testimonies of the informant, PW 5, and his father, PW 1, as they are the interested witnesses does not have any substance as nothing seems to be there to impeach there testimonies, whereas version of PW 5 gets corroboration by the FIR and also by the testimony of PW 1 and part of the occurrence by the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3. 2 and 3. Further testimonies of PW 5 and PW 1 get corroboration by the medical evidence, as the Doctor. PW 4 did find six injuries on the person on the informant which according to doctor, were caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus, 1 do find that the trial Court has rightly passed the order of conviction against the appellants. 8. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellants seems to have faced rigorous of the trial for about 13 years and must have suffered mental agony during the pendency of this appeal for about 7 years and, therefore, keeping in view that aspect of the matter as well as the nature of offence, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone. Accordingly, they are sentenced. With this modification on the point of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.