JUDGMENT The sole appellant called in question the legality of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 08/09.10.2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause of further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellant is as follows :- At the instance of the informant-Sohnu Gope (P.W.4) his fardbeyan was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Raidih Police Station in injured condition in Government Hospital, Raidihwith the allegation that on 15.11.1997 while he was coming back to his village after seeing Bandai Mela at Naro Toli and reached near Ghato Dhar river at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant-Sita Gope with three unknown persons caught him from back and took him towards Getu Pani Hill and assaulted with slap, fist and stones and threw him in a cave of the said hill and further threw stones on him resulting in he sustained injuries in his mouth, right and left hand, chest, legs and on the whole body. His right hand got fractured. It is also alleged that as he became unconscious, on the next day in the morning his brother Mahru Gope (P.W.2) son Mahabir Gope (P.W.3) and wife Parvati Devi (P.W.1) came there and took him out from the cave and shifted him to Government Hospital at Raidih for treatment. The reason behind the assault as stated in the F.I.R. is land dispute. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the aforesaid case was registered and after due investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant-Sita Gope only under Sections 341/323/325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The charge against the appellant was framed only under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried as he was falsely implicated. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the code’) the defence is that the occurrence, as alleged, never took place and he had never assaulted the informant and pleads innocence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the code’) the defence is that the occurrence, as alleged, never took place and he had never assaulted the informant and pleads innocence. The prosecution, as it appears from the record, has examined altogether 13 witnesses. Among them, P.W.4-Sohnu Gope is the informant, P.W.1-Parvati Devi the wife of the informant, P.W.2-Mahru Gope the brother, P.W.3-Mahabir Gope son, the two wood seller Bhokla Ram and Chhatrapal Ram have been examined as P.W.5 and P.W.6 respectively. P.W.7-Bhikhram Kharia, P.W.8-Gyatri Devi, P.W.9-Bhalbhadra Kharia, P.W.10-Suraj Nath Gope, P.W.12-Budhram Bhagat have been declared hostile. Investigating Officer is P.W.13 but the doctor, who had treated the informant, has not been examined by the prosecution. However, the injury report has been marked as Ext.2 as proved under Section 294 of the Code. The trial court after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the injury report convicted the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. The question that falls for determination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned court below is justified? 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the court below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the interested witnesses the wife, son and the brother though they are not even the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Further, assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel submitted that the court below also failed to take notice of the vital contradictions occurring in the evidence of the informant (P.W.4) and other witnesses. Thus, the conclusion of the learned court below is without any basis and the judgment is practically unreasoned and fit to be set aside. 5. Contrary to the above submission, learned counsel representing the State in support of the judgment of conviction and sentence submitted that contradictions as pointed out are not vital affecting the entire prosecution story of assault and injuries. 6. I have gone through the evidences available in the case records and on anxious consideration of the two points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my view, both the grounds taken for assailing judgment of conviction does not affect the case of the prosecution. 6. I have gone through the evidences available in the case records and on anxious consideration of the two points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my view, both the grounds taken for assailing judgment of conviction does not affect the case of the prosecution. Even if it be considered that there is no eye witness of the occurrence but P.W.1 (the wife) and P.W.2 (the brother) have testified in their evidences that after receiving the information they came to the place of occurrence where they found the informant lying in a cave and they shifted the informant to hospital where the informant (P.W.4) disclosed that Sita Gope and three other persons had assaulted him. The injured informant (P.W.4) in his evidence has fully corroborated his own statement as given in the fardbeyan. It is true that there are minor contradictions in his statement but the entire testimony cannot be thrown out merely relying upon those minor contradictions. The two wood sellers P.W.5 and 6 have also testified that when they reached near Murrahill cave while going to sell wood at Patra Toli, they found one person lying there and there was fracture in his one hand and on inquiry, the person who was unknown to them, disclosed his name whereafter he went to Naro Toli the village of the injured to inform. The injury report Ext.2 clearly speaks of that there was fracture in the right humerus of the informant. It further appears from the injury report that P.W.4 had sustained five injuries on his person though injury nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were simple in nature but injury no.4 was fracture of shaft of right humerus. In that event, ocular evidence of the injured P.W.4 as testified by him gets corroboration from the medical evidence as well. 7. In the circumstances, I do find that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it was submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for more than three months during trial and thereafter when he was convicted and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence for the period already undergone shall be sufficient. 8. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it was submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for more than three months during trial and thereafter when he was convicted and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence for the period already undergone shall be sufficient. It was also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1997 and since then more than 17 years have passed and the appellant has faced rigorous of trial and long pendency of the appeal so a lenient view may be taken against the appellant. 9. It appears from the record that more than 17 years have passed and the appellant has suffered and faced the rigorous of trial and the long pendency of this appeal, in my view, ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by him but on payment of fine of Rs.500/- as awarded by court below. The sentence is accordingly modified. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for two months as awarded by the court below. 10. With the modification in the order of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.