Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 1. The above three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.5.1993 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 87/83 of 1989/1991 by which appellant no.1 Wazid Ali and appellant no.3 Md. Rauf have been found guilty for offences under Ss. 148, 324 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code, two years each under Ss. 324 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.2 Md. Wadood has been found guilty for offences under Ss. 147, 324/149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and two years each under Ss. 324/149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. With regard to an occurrence dated 27.4.1984 at about 5.00 P.M. a case was registered on the basis of statement of in-formant Mahendra Sahni (P.W.5) in which he alleged that while he along with his brother Sukrit Sahni (P.W. 4) was returning to his house via Gandak Colony and when they reached near the country made liquors shop of Surya Narayan Chaudhary, all of a sudden, accused Wazid Ali, Mohammad Rauf, Md. Wadoo and Md. Gafoor surrounded them and demanded Rahar. On refusal to give Rahar, they threatened the informant and went away. 3. Later on, on 30.4.1984 at 8.30 P.M. the informant along with his brother was putting his thrashed Rahar in the gunny bags in the khalihan at Gandak Colony, in the light of lantern and electric light of the colony, all of a suddden, the above named four accused along with 5 unknown persons variously armed with deadly weapons came and asked as to why Arhar was not given to them despite demand. In the meanwhile, accused Wazid Ali attacked on Sukrit Sahni with farsa with a view to kill him. In the process of saving himself, farsa of accused Wazid Ali struck on his head and got injury. Thereafter a dagger was hurled on him by Md. Rauf and when he tried to intervene, the dagger struck his hand which cut his finger. Other accused Md. In the process of saving himself, farsa of accused Wazid Ali struck on his head and got injury. Thereafter a dagger was hurled on him by Md. Rauf and when he tried to intervene, the dagger struck his hand which cut his finger. Other accused Md. Wadood started assaulting Sukrit Sahni with iron rod and Md. Gafoor and other 5 or 6 unknown persons started assaulting him by lathi. When informant Mahendra Sahni tried to intervene, Md. Wazid ordered his accomplices to kill him. On his order, accused Md. Rauf hurled chhura blows on his head and neck. Thereafter all the accused persons including unknown accused persons started assaulting him with lathi. The accused persons took away three gunny bags of Arhar. On hulla, Sita Ram Sahni (P.W. 3) Jag Narayan Choudhary (P.W.2), Bangali Sahni (not examined) and others of Gandak Colony came and saw the occurrence. They brought the informant and his brother to hospital. Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant was recorded by A.S.I. of Samastipur in the Samastipur hospital. Fardbeyan bears signature of the informant which has been marked Ext. 5. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The case was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the above named persons exonerating Md. Gaffor as no person of that name was found in the said Mohalla. Cognizance was taken and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Trial proceeded. Charges were framed against the accused persons who pleaded innocence and faced trial. 4. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication. The defence of accused Md. Rauf, Wazid Ali and Md. Wadood was that the informant and his men them-selves had entered into the shop of Bibi Shakila Khatoon and after assaulting her, looted articles of the shop on the alleged date of occurrence at 8.00 P.M. Further defence of Md. Rauf was that he was witness in the criminal case filed by Bibi Shakila Khatoon against the informant and others. The defence of accused Rajendra Sahni (since ac-quitted) was that he has been falsely implicated on account of previous litigation with Mahendra Sahni, informant. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Rauf was that he was witness in the criminal case filed by Bibi Shakila Khatoon against the informant and others. The defence of accused Rajendra Sahni (since ac-quitted) was that he has been falsely implicated on account of previous litigation with Mahendra Sahni, informant. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. They are Uma Shankar Prasad (P.W. 1), Jag Narayan Choudhary (P.W. 2), Sita Ram Sahni (P.W. 3), Sukrit Sahni, injured (P.W. 4), Mahendra Sahni, informant (P.W. 5), Dr. Ved Bhanu Uday Prasad (P.W. 6), Hriday Narayan Jha (P.W. 7), Kameshwar Prasad (P.W. 8), Md. Ekbal (P.W.9) and Bishnu Kant Jha (P.W. 10). 6. The defence has also examined six witnesses. They are Nawal Kishore Roy (D.W. 1), Md. Mohiuddin (D.W. 2), Brij Nandan Prasad (D.W. 3), Sita Ram Prasad (D.W. 4), Rabindra Thakur (D.W. 5) Dr. Ved Bhanu Uday Prasad (D.W. 6). 7. P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 have respectively proved the forwarding report (Ext. 7) on the fardbeyan, Fardbeyan (Ext. 8) and formal F.I.R. (Ext. 9). P.W. 1 has also proved an-other formal F.I.R. 8. On behalf of the defence, D.W. 1 has proved F.I.R. (Ext. A) and its Fardbeyan (Ext. B) and endorsement (Ext. C) on that fardbeyan of a criminal case brought against witness Jag Narayan Choudhary. Ext. F is the order sheet of dated 8.8.1980 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate of that criminal case. D.W. 3 has proved entry no. 1528 of G.R. Register (Ext. E). The entry with regard to a case u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code against witness Jag Narayan Choudhary and other for cheating by showing forged notice. This entry has also been proved to discredit the testimony of P.W. 2, Jag Narayan Choudhary, D.W. 2 has proved the copy of informatory petition (Ext. D) filed by accused Rajendra Sahnion 16.6.1984 before the S.D.O. against P.W. 2. D.W. 4 has also proved a copy of petition filed before S.P. Samastipur against the informant and the Investigating Officer. D.W. 5 has proved a complaint petition (Ext. 8) filed by Shakila Khatoon against the in-formants party. D.W. 6 Dr. Ved Bhanu Udai Prasad was examined to show that on the date of occurrence, he also examined Shakila Khatoon. He has proved entry (Ext.I) in the injury register showing incised injury on the scalp of Shakila Khatoon. 9. Firstly, the evidence of Dr. 8) filed by Shakila Khatoon against the in-formants party. D.W. 6 Dr. Ved Bhanu Udai Prasad was examined to show that on the date of occurrence, he also examined Shakila Khatoon. He has proved entry (Ext.I) in the injury register showing incised injury on the scalp of Shakila Khatoon. 9. Firstly, the evidence of Dr. Ved Bhanu Udai Prasad (P.W. 6) is being discussed. He has examined Sukrit Sahni on 30.4.1984 at 9.55 P.M. and found two incised injuries and an abrasion caused by sharp cutting weapon and by hard and blunt substance. The injuries were simple in nature. He found the following injuries; (i) One incised injury over scalp middle part 1 1/2" x 1/4 x 1/6". (ii) Incised injury 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/6" over right index finger. (iii) Abrasion 1" x 1/2 " over left leg. On the same day at 10.00 P.M. he examined informant Mahendra Sahni and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4 x 1/6" over right side of the scalp. (ii) Swelling 2"x1" over left thumb. (iii) Abrasion 1/4 x 1/4" over left thumb. (iv) Linear abrasion 3" x 1/6" over left side of chest near axilla. (v) Echhymosis 3" x 1/2" over back. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury reports have been marked as Ext. 3 and 3/1. He has also proved the discharge slips which have been marked as Ext. 4 and 4/1. 10 According to the informant, P.W. 5, on 30.04.1984 the accused persons variously armed came and committed various assault as result thereof two persons were injured. They are P.Ws. 5 and 4. 11. The factum of assault has also been corroborated by other witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and they have consistently supported the fact that the informant and Sukrit Sahni were assaulted by the accused persons by means of various weapons. They have been cross-examined in detail but their testimony has remain intact on the point of assault to the informant and Sukrit Sahni and also on the point of theft of three bags of Arhar by the appellants. 12. The Trial Court after analysing the evidences of the prosecution and the defence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as stated above. 12. The Trial Court after analysing the evidences of the prosecution and the defence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as stated above. 13. After going through the entire evidence, I am also of the view that conviction of the appellants requires no interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is maintained. 14. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in course of trial, appellant Wazid Ali has remained in custody for about four months and other two appellants have also remained in custody for some period. Further submission is that the occurrence had taken place about 22 years earlier and much water has flown in the Ganges since the date of occurrence and if the sentences of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them, the same will be sufficient for the ends of justice. 15. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I also agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, sentences of the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them which will be sufficient for the ends of justice. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.