Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant Tarni Jha challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.454 of 1990 / 165 of 2002 whereby and whereunder he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323, 325 IPC however no substantial sentence was passed relating to Section 323 of the IPC while he has been directed to undergo R.I. for 5 years as well as also fined Rs.2000/- in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 325 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that as prosecution has failed to place cogent and reliable evidence regarding sustaining of grievous injuries for want of exhibit of injury report and, even after examining PW-5, Dr. Saileja Nand Jha, who had simply deposed with regard to admission of the PW-3, Gajendra Jha in his ward for treatment of abases, nothing more has been brought up on record to interconnect the same. As such, finding of the learned lower court with regard thereto is not at all found duly substantiated. However, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that though there happens to be inconsistency amongst the evidence of PW-3, the injured as well as PW-4, his mother but the assault by means of Akwan stick is there resulting application of Section 323 IPC. It has been submitted furthermore that the occurrence is of the year 1988 and after gap of such long period it will not be prudent to direct the appellant to suffer substantial sentence and instead thereof the sentence be directed to saturate over period already undergone. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes. 5. Having gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that neither the Investigating Officer nor the treating doctor has been examined in this case. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 though have been declared hostile by the prosecution but to some extent have supported the occurrence. PW-3 is the victim while PW-4 is his mother who also claimed to have sustained injury by brick particle. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 though have been declared hostile by the prosecution but to some extent have supported the occurrence. PW-3 is the victim while PW-4 is his mother who also claimed to have sustained injury by brick particle. For want of evidence of treating doctor, the prosecution could not be able to bring on the record that the treatment of the PW-3 so given at Bhagalpur Medical College by having his admission as indoor patient was on account of assault alleged to have been inflicted at the end of appellant as well as was grievous in nature. Though the learned lower court slipped down from major Section 307 to 325 of the IPC, which also not found substantiated by way of evidence having produced on behalf of prosecution. Consequent thereupon, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court relating to Section 325 did not justify its prevalence. 6. After appreciating the argument raised on behalf of respective parties as well as going through the evidence available on the record it is evident that case under Section 323 IPC is found proved and accordingly is held so. So far sentence is concerned, taking into account the long intervening period, appellant, Tarni Jha is fined Rs.1000/- and in default thereof is directed to undergo R.I. for three months. Fine must be deposited within four weeks failing which the learned lower court will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.