Judgment ABHIJIT SINHA, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the two appellants herein is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1992 passed by Sri Mishri Lall Choudhary, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 48/123 of 1986/1988 (arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 66 of 1985). By the impugned judgment and order both the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sec. 307/34 I.P.C. and each of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case originated on the fardbeyan given by injured Jhingan Rai at 7.00 A.M. on 14.07.1985 at the State Dispensary, Sahebganj in respect of an occurrence which took place earlier in the night at about 1.30 A.M. According to the informant while he was sleeping on a Chouki at his darwaza the accused persons arrived and surrounding him they started hurling abuses at him. The informant protested whereupon accused Gagandeo Rai dealt a blow on the face of the informant with the garasa in his hand and as the informant raised hulla accused Sahdeo Rai dealt a blow on the head near the left ear of the informant with the farsa in his hand. Attracted by the bulla raised by the informant, his wife Jaleshwari Devi, co-villagers Mahender Rai, Munjhi Rai, Musafir Rai and several others arrived whereupon the accused persons took to their heels. The injured informant was removed to the Dispensary for treatment. The genesis of the occurrence is said to be the issue that some 10 days prior to the instant occurrence Sahedeo Rais daughter was found cutting maize from the fields of the informant for which the wife of the informant raised protest as a result whereof there had been ill feelings between the informant and Sahdeo which eventually resulted in the instant occurrence. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Gangan Rai, Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 66 1985 was registered. After due investigtion the police submitted a charge sheet gainst the accused persons under Sections 448, 341, 326 and 307 I.P.C. After commitment both the accused were charged only under Sec. 307/34 I.P.C. 4. In support of its case the prosecution sought to examine as many as 8 witnesses of whom P.W. 4 is the informant, P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 are doctors and P.W. 6 is a formal witness. In support of its case the prosecution sought to examine as many as 8 witnesses of whom P.W. 4 is the informant, P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 are doctors and P.W. 6 is a formal witness. It would be worth while to mention here that P.W. 2, Mahender Rai, was examined in part on 3.9.1990 and his examination was deferred for another day but thereafter the witness never turned up. The Investigating Officer also could not be examined as he was reported to be dead. 5. The defence plea is one of innocence and denial of the accusations attributed to them. 6. Several contentions were raised at the bar on behalf of the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. It was sought to be submitted that even though villagers were suggested to have rushed to the place of occurrence, the prosecution had not taken pains for their examination at the trial and as such there has only been the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses. The appellants were also critical of the finding of the trial court that an offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. had been made out when from the injury report a specific case at the best under Sec. 326/34 I.P.C. was made out. 7. The informant Jhingan Rai figuring as P.W. 4 has supported his fardbeyan fully in material particulars. He has stated how he was sleeping on the Chouki when the accused persons arrived and started abusing him and how, when he raised protest, he was inflicted blows with garasa by accused Gagandeo and by farsa by accused Sahdeo. He has also indicated the sites of the injuries sustained by him. He also stated of his wife and other villagers including Gulli Rai, Mahender Rai, Munghi Rai and Musafir Rai coming to his rescue. The genesis of the occurrence has also been reiterated. In course of the cross examination the defence appeared to proceed on the line that the accused persons had been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Though P.W. 4 admitted that he had litigation with co-villager Lakshman Rai after the instant occurrence and that prior to this occurrence Feku Sah had instituted a criminal case which ended in his acquittal he was categorically clear that there was no litigation with the two accused persons. 8. Though P.W. 4 admitted that he had litigation with co-villager Lakshman Rai after the instant occurrence and that prior to this occurrence Feku Sah had instituted a criminal case which ended in his acquittal he was categorically clear that there was no litigation with the two accused persons. 8. P.W. 3 (Jageshwari Devi) the wife of the informant has fully supported the evidence of P.W. 4 in material particulars. Gulli Rai (P.W. 1) in course of his evidence has stated that he rushed to the house of the the informant on hearing nulla and saw Sahdeo Rai armed with a farsa and Gagandeo armed with a garasa fleeing towards the north from the house of the informant. P.W. 2 (Mahender Rai) though examined in part has also stated in similar terms. The defence could not extract anything in their favour from the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 3. 9. Dr. Shaligram Singh (P.W. 5) who had examined the injured informant at the dispensary has testified regarding the injuries sustained by the informant, namely (a) cut wound on left side of head above the left ear 3" x 1/2" x bone deep, the temple bone of left side was cut 1" in length and (b) cut wound left mandible 3" x 1/2" x bone deep, the mandible was cut 2" in length. He had advised for X-ray. In his opinion the injuries were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon such as farsa and garasa. On perusal of the X-ray report he found fracture of the mandible though no fracture of the skull bone was detected. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the witnesses are interested and there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. So far as interested witnesses are concerned there is no hard and fast rule that the prosecution case should be out rightly discarded on this ground. On the contrary it is subjected to examination more careful and cautious. In the instant case P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 are trust inspiring and have been supported and corroborated with medical evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5). The contradictions are minor in nature and worth ignoring. 11. Accordingly I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 12. In the instant case P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 are trust inspiring and have been supported and corroborated with medical evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5). The contradictions are minor in nature and worth ignoring. 11. Accordingly I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 12. Now coming to the question of sentence it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place as far back as 14.07.1985 and since then the appellants have been facing the ordeal of protracted litigation which by itself is sufficient punishment. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for adopting a lenient view regard also being had to the age of the appellants as also of the instant appeal pending for fifteen years. 13. Sahdeo Rai on the date of judgment and order was aged about 65 years and Gagandeo Rai about 45 years. They are now aged 80 years and 60 years respectively. They have also suffered trauma, mental strain and financial crisis lasting more than two decades. It would, in my opinion, not be proper to send them back to jail for serving out them the remaining period of their sentence. In my view it will be expedient in the interest of justice to modify the sentence to the period already undergone. Both the appellants are on bail. They are accordingly discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 14. In the result the appeal is dismissed but subject to the modification in the sentence.