JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted u/s.394 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated 9.5.1997 and 12.5.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.80 of 1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to informant Gafoor Mohammad (P.W.4) is that on the night between 2nd/3rd of August, 1994 the appellant along with 2-3 others caught hold of him, but he escaped unhurt. Soon thereafter the appellant accompanied by other miscreants and assaulted him with the knife causing injury on his right hand and tied his hands and legs and snatched away his house hold articles. This occurrence was witnessed by the informant and his daughter-in-law, who both identified the appellant. The reason for the occurrence is that about one and half months ago the appellant had attempted to take advantage of his daughter-in-law which was resisted and thereafter the present occurrence was committed by him. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are formal witnesses, whereas P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the material witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 Shamul Khatoon is a child witness, aged about 12 years and grant daughter of the informant. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of the informant, whereas P.W.4 is the informant and P.W.5 is the doctor, who medically examined P.W.4 on 3.8.1994. 4. Evidently P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have been consistent in their deposition that on the alleged date and hour of occurrence appellant along with some unknown miscreants entered into the Palani of the informant, where he was sleeping and assaulted him with the dagger. P.W.1 and P.W.2 further deposed that they had seen the occurrence from their window through torch light and had seen that the appellant entered into their house forcibly, where after P.W.1 and P.W.2 fled away from there and after the commission of theft of the house hold articles returned to their house. P.W.4, the informant, supported the fact that on the date of occurrence he had been criminally assaulted by the appellant, who also committed theft of his house hold articles. P.W.4, the doctor, found three scratch injuries on the right hand of the informant, which in his opinion had been caused by sharp cutting weapon. 5. P.W.4, the informant, supported the fact that on the date of occurrence he had been criminally assaulted by the appellant, who also committed theft of his house hold articles. P.W.4, the doctor, found three scratch injuries on the right hand of the informant, which in his opinion had been caused by sharp cutting weapon. 5. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case, but from the evidence of the consistent four eye witnesses, I am inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellant. However, considering that the appellant has remained in custody for about four and half years and the fact that the occurrence had taken place about 17 years ago, in my opinion, the period already undergone by him shall be sufficient punishment in the ends of justice. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.