JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted Under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three months by a judgment dated 9.7.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 804 of 1989. 2. The Appellant along with nine other accused persons were put on trial for offences Under Section s.307 and 379 I.P.C., but eight of the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges and the sole Appellant was convicted as mentioned above. 3. The case of the prosecution according to Lalita Devi wife of accused Umesh Thakur is that her husband and family members used to abuse and assault her for demand of dowry and on 14.3.1989 her in-laws had assaulted her and she was forcibly being taken to her fathers place. On the way they further assaulted her and snatched her clothes and ornaments, in course of which the present Appellant was apprehended while the rest fled away. 4. During trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 Upendra Paswan has stated that he had seen accused persons snatching away the ornaments and clothes of the informant as also the Appellant pressing the neck of the informant. P.W.3 Hari Thakur is the father of the informant and has testified about the fact of the relationship of the informant with her in-laws and when they had reached the place of occurrence on hulla, they saw part of the occurrence and that the Appellant was apprehended at the spot while the others fled away. P.W.4 is also on the point of the Appellant pressing the neck of the informant and participating in assault along with the rest of the accused persons. P.W.5 has been disbelieved by the court below. P.W.6 is a formal Police Officer. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, there is no doubt that the Appellant had assaulted the informant on the fateful day and hence conviction of the Appellant is maintained, but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification.