JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has beep convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 208 of 1998/135 of 2001 by judgment dated 18.1.2002. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.1985 at 10 p.m. the accused persons came to his toddy shop and demanded toddy. When his nephew refused to do so it enraged the accused persons who assaulted the informant with the "chhura' on account of which he later died. After the death of the informant charges were framed under Section 302/34, IPC against the two accused but they were acquitted of the said charges and instead appellant was convicted under Section 326, IPC whereas the co-accused was convicted under Section 323, IPC and released on admonition. 3. During trial the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom Ramadhar Prasad, PW 6 is a formal witness whereas PW 1, Bishundeo Thakur, PW 5 Jatahu Sah and PW 7 Chandrika Prasad, PW 2 Bishwanath Choudhary, PW 3 Shambhu Sah and PW 4, Mahadeo Sah are eye-witnesses. PW 9, Dr. Vijay Kumar Choudhary examined the informant on 15.10.1985 and proved the injury report Exhibit-5 whereas PW 8, Dr. Awadhesh Prasad Singh conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. PW 10 is the Investigating Officer. It also appears that for the same occurrence a counter-case was instituted the documents of which were produced by the defence. 4. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that PW 4, the nephew of the informant and deceased who was the main witness in the occurrence was not examined by the Investigating Officer. During investigation the rest of the eye-witnesses have consistently stated in corroboration to each other on the manner of occurrence and the participation of the appellant. Since the informant died almost about two months later and the Doctor performing post-mortem opined that the death was on account of tuberculosis and anaemia the appellant was discharged of the offence under Section 302, IPC. The evidence of PW 9 Dr. Vijay Kumar Choudhary reveals that he had found one stitched wound 1-1/2" length in the lower part of the abdomen which in his opinion was grievous in nature. However, the Doctor who had initially examined the injured has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. The evidence of PW 9 Dr. Vijay Kumar Choudhary reveals that he had found one stitched wound 1-1/2" length in the lower part of the abdomen which in his opinion was grievous in nature. However, the Doctor who had initially examined the injured has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and identification not having been proved appellant deserves to be acquitted. 6. The aforesaid argument is fit to be rejected in circumstances that the evidence is consistent on material particulars on the point of manner of occurrence which does not leave any room for doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Also, since the accused persons were well-known there being no means of identification has no significance. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the prosecution has discharged its duty in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. However, I find that the appellant has remained in custody for more than one year and in the circumstances it would be against the interest of justice to send the appellant to jail after lapse of twenty-seven years. In such circumstances, the sentence is reduced to one already undergone with the further direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the heirs of the deceased and notice thereupon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. In case he fails to do so he shall undergo rigourous imprisonment for a further imprisonment for one and half years. 8. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.