Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellant no.1, Baidyanath Rai has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellant nos.2 and 3, namely, Jangalu Rai and Prabhu Rai have been convicted under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.8.1983 at about 6.30 A.M., the informant, Baleshwar Singh (since dead) was coming back to his house after easing in the Rahar field. It has been alleged that while he was coming all the accused persons surrounded and accused Ram Prasad Rai ordered other co-accused to kill the informant and upon which the accused, Baidyanath Rai inflicted dagger blow on the chest of the informant. He gave another Chura below on his neck which caused injury on his shoulder. It has been further alleged that the accused again inflicted dagger blow on the stomach of the informant but he warded it off by his hand, so he sustained bleeding injury on his hand. The other accused assaulted the informant by fists, slaps and legs. The witnesses came and intervened as a result thereof the life of the informant could be saved. It has been further alleged that the condition of the informant was precarious and so he was taken to Hajipur in a Jeep where he was medically treated. The police concerned had been informed about the occurrence but he did not turn up to record the Fardbeyan of the informant, hence the complaint petition was lodged in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused persons. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the Officer Incharge, Desari police station to register a case and on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn. The police started investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W.1, Satyabrat Singh and P.W.2, Ram Bachan Singh have claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3, Jaddu Paswan, has been declared hostile. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W.1, Satyabrat Singh and P.W.2, Ram Bachan Singh have claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3, Jaddu Paswan, has been declared hostile. P.W.4 is Doctor Shailendra Kumar Rakesh. P.W.5, Brajnandan Singh is the I.O. of this case. P.W. 6 Lalan Kumar Singh is a formal witness who has proved Exts. 4/1 to 4/5 which are various signatures. He has also proved Ext.5, the complaint petition. He has also proved the Vakalatnama (Ext. 6). 5. The defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1, Pashupati Nath Singh has proved Ext. A which is a sale deed dated 2.8.1976 executed by Baidyanath Singh in favour of one Dasrath Rai and Nemo Rai. D.W.2, Jit Lai Rai has proved Ext. A/1 which is another sale deed dated 29.11.1985 executed by Dip Narain Singh in favour of Baidyanath Rai. 6. P.W.1, Satyabrat Singh has supported the case of the prosecution. According to him the occurrence took place about 7 1/2 years ago at about 6 A.M. He reached the place of occurrence on Hulla and saw and heard accused Ram Prasad Rai (since dead) ordering the other accused persons to kill the informant. He has further stated that on his instigation, accused Baidyanath Rai gave a Chura blow on the chest of the informant. He inflicted second Chura blow which hit the shoulder of the informant. He gave third Chura blow which was warded off by the informant as a result thereof, he sustained injuries on his hand. He has further stated that the other accused persons had assaulted the informant by means of fists and slaps. He has further stated that due to intervention of the witnesses the life of the informant was saved. 7. P.W. 2, Ram Bachan Singh has also corroborated the prosecution story as stated by P.W.1. According to him on the date of occurrence he was in his field and having heard hulla when he went there accused Baidyanath Rai was assaulting the informant, Baleshwar Singh (since deceased) with Chura. 7. P.W. 2, Ram Bachan Singh has also corroborated the prosecution story as stated by P.W.1. According to him on the date of occurrence he was in his field and having heard hulla when he went there accused Baidyanath Rai was assaulting the informant, Baleshwar Singh (since deceased) with Chura. He has also stated that he assaulted him by Chura on his chest and thereafter on his shoulder and again he assaulted on the stomach but he warded it off by his hand, so he received injury on his hand. The other accused persons also assaulted him with fists and slaps. He has further stated that on the order of Ram Prasad Rai they had assaulted the informant. 8. P.W.4 is Doctor Shailendra Kumar Rakesh, who had examined Baleshwar Singh, the informant on 9.8.1983 at 9.15 A.M. and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) One penetrating wound on the right inter costal space in about mid clavicular line of the size 1/2"x1/4"x1/2". (2) One penetrating wound on the right shoulder of the size 1/4"x1/4"x3/4" (3) One penetrating wound on the liner aspect of the right forearm of the size 1/2"x1/4"x1/2". The injury report has been marked as Ext. 1. The nature of injury no.1 has been found grievous. The Doctor has opined that this injury was dangerous to life. 9 P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. He visited the place of occurrence and found the occurrence to be true. He has proved Ext.3, the endorsement of Shri Raj nandan Sahay, Officer Incharge. He has also proved Ext. 4 which is the formal F.I.R. He has also given the vivid description of the place of occurrence. He has further stated that Jaddu Paswan supported the prosecution story of Marpit. In his cross-examination he has stated that the blood stained clothes were not given by the victim to him. He has further stated that he recorded the statement of the injured Baleshwar Singh but he did not put his signature over it. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has been further submitted that there is contradiction in the deposition of the I.O. He has stated that he had recorded the Fardbeyan of P.W.1 at the Darwaja of Baleshwar Singh on 19.8.1983 but Baleshwar Singh did not put his signature over it. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has been further submitted that there is contradiction in the deposition of the I.O. He has stated that he had recorded the Fardbeyan of P.W.1 at the Darwaja of Baleshwar Singh on 19.8.1983 but Baleshwar Singh did not put his signature over it. According to the I.O. the statement of P.W.1 was recorded at the Darwaja of Baleshwar Singh but he has stated that the statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. 11. So far as the submission of the learned counsel that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained but it transpires that a complaint case was filed in which it has been alleged that the police was informed by the Doctor while the informant was admitted in the Hospital but the police did not come to record the statement of the informant and later on the complaint case was filed and thus F.I.R. was registered on complaint so filed. As such the delay has been properly explained. So far as the submission of the learned counsel that the I.O. has recorded the statement of the informant, Baleshwar Singh but he did not put his signature over it. But it appears that the I.O. has taken re-statement of the informant and as such his signature was not required at all. As far as the contradiction in the place of recording of the statement of P.W. 1 and informant is concerned it is not a major contradiction to discard the case of the prosecution as it does not affect the manner of assault and occurrence. I.O. himself after so many years might have for gotten this fact that where he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and informant (since dead). It is a fact that he first went to the Darwaja of the informant and then to P.O. as it appears from his deposition. 12. From the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the prosecution has proved its case that the appellant Baidyanath Rai gave repeated dagger blows on the informant causing injury to his various part of his body which has also been corroborated by the medical expert (P.W.4). The court below on the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses rightly convicted the appellant Baidyanath Rai for the offences punishable under sec. The court below on the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses rightly convicted the appellant Baidyanath Rai for the offences punishable under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants who assaulted the informant by fists and slaps have been rightly convicted under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 13. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place on 9.8.1983 i.e. more than 24 years ago and as such the appellants have been sufficiently harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation. As such some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellants. 14. Considering 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 appellant, Baidyanath Rai of rigorous imprisonment of five years is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for three years only. So far as other appellants, namely, Jangalu Rai and Prabhu Rai are concerned, their sentences of rigorous imprisonment of two months is altered to that of fine of Rs. 500.00 each to be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the substantive sentence passed by the court below shall automatically be restored. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence this appeal is dismissed.