JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on fardbeyan of the victim (informant) PW 2 is that at about 8.00 pm. informant was taking meal (litti) at Bakri Bus Stand, Khagaria in front of Betel Shop of one Shankar. In the meantime, 4 accused persons including appellants namely, Bijo Mahton, Gopal Mahto and Ramsaran Mahton caught hold the informant and then accused Kirandeo Mahton and Bijo Mahton blew their knife repeatedly with intention to kill him. Alarm was raised on behalf of the informant, nearby persons gathered there and accused persons fled from the place. Informant fell unconscious and was removed to Khagaria Hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded at about 10.35 pm. by the local Police. 2. Reason behind the incident is said refusal to withdraw a complaint case filed on behalf of the informant. One of the accused persons namely, Kirandeo Mahton absconded, so charge-sheet was submitted showing him absconder and rest three including appellants appeared to face the trial which ended in conviction to them for the offence under Sections 307/34, 324/34 and 341 of the I.P.C. but a single sentence is awarded for all the three offences by passing the impugned judgment and order, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal. 3. In all 4 witnesses are examined in the case. They are PW 1 Dr. Arun Kumar, PW 2 Sonelal Mahto, informant of the case, PW 3 N.M. Singh. I.O. of the case and PW 4 Md. Basiruddin, a formal witness to get exhibited the complaint petition as exhibit- 6. Ext. 1 and 1/1 are injury report of the informant. Sonelal Mahto, Ext.2 is X Ray Report, Ext.3 is signature of the informant on fardbeyan, Ext.4 formal F.I.R. 4. PW 3 I.O. of the case is there to state fair investigation on his behalf, while PW 4 is a formal witness. PW 1 is Doctor who has examined the informant and proved the injury reports. Ext. 1 and 1/1 by opining that injuries have been caused by knife. 5. PW 2 injured and informant of the case is there to state that injuries were caused by appellant Bijo Mahton and one Kirandeo Mahto who did not face trial. Appellants No. 1 and 2 are alleged for facilitating Kirandeo Mahton and appellant, Bijo Mahton in causing injuries by means of knife and number of injuries is six. 6. 5. PW 2 injured and informant of the case is there to state that injuries were caused by appellant Bijo Mahton and one Kirandeo Mahto who did not face trial. Appellants No. 1 and 2 are alleged for facilitating Kirandeo Mahton and appellant, Bijo Mahton in causing injuries by means of knife and number of injuries is six. 6. This much has been considered by the trial Court while concluding conviction of the appellants. Some discrepancies are pointed out on behalf of the appellants learned counsel which according to him is leading to create doubt on prosecution case. They are no independent witness in the case even persons taken the informant to hospital are not examined rather the sole witness is informant of the case, there could be no occasion to chose Bus Stand, a busy place for attack and there was enmity in between the parties for false implication. 7. No doubt, it is prudence of the prosecution to get examined independent eye witnesses of the case and in this case, they are named in the charge-sheet also. Further, there is no doubt that informant is injured of the case and more reliable than anyone if circumstance does not allow for false implication. A case filed on his behalf certainly was pending in the Court but that has been shown cause of action in the case that appellants were insisting to withdraw the complaint. Informant refused to withdraw and for that only, the attack was made otherwise also enmity cuts both way. 8. Other witnesses including eye witnesses named in the charge-sheet are not examined, same was raised in the Court below also rather an application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. was filed to get them examined but the same was opposed on behalf of the learned A.P.P. that they were gained over on behalf of the defence. 9. I am of the definite view that conviction can be based relying the sole injured witness rightly has been accepted by the trial Court. As about the place, availability of the person to be attacked is relevant though in instant case place of occurrence is Bus Stand but time is 8.00 pm. and informant was alone. 10. Another aspect of the case is intention or knowledge if attack was to kill. Number of injuries is six. As about the place, availability of the person to be attacked is relevant though in instant case place of occurrence is Bus Stand but time is 8.00 pm. and informant was alone. 10. Another aspect of the case is intention or knowledge if attack was to kill. Number of injuries is six. Most of them are on upper including vital part of the body are caused by knife are to establish that intention was to kill. All the areas are covered by the trial Court. Judgment is not suffering from any infirmity. Now, the sentence remains to consider if can be minimized to any period. Incident is of the year 1996, number of accused persons is 4, assailants 2 only and nature of injuries really entitles appellants for some relief on the point of sentence which is awarded under Section 307 of the I.P.C. only for all the appellants that is minimized to 3 years R.I. for 10 years awarded by the Court. 11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence only and that is modified and minimized to 3 years. With such modification, the Judgment of conviction dated 19.07.1999 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1997 arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 250 of 1996 is hereby affirmed. 12. Bail bond and sureties furnished on behalf of the appellants is hereby cancelled. 13. Above named appellants are directed to surrender to serve the sentences as stated above and trial Court is directed to take proper initiative for arrest of the appellants. 14. Let a copy of this Judgment along with lower Court records be sent to the trial Court immediately. Appeal partly allowed.