JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 28 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIth, Dhanbad whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad on 16.02.1994 in G.R. Case No. 1501 of 1985, arising out of Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 288 of 1985 (T.R. No.95 of 1994) convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is to the effect that the informant along with his brother were sitting on the door of his house when Ratan Das came and assaulted his brother with a rod. It is said that when informant's sister-in-law came she was assaulted by Bodi Das with a lathi on her legs. Subsequently when the aunt of the informant came she was assaulted by the petitioner with a rod on her finger. One Shivshankar Das also received injuries. On alarm being raised Pado Lochan Mahato and Ganpat Mahato came and saved the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 288 of 1985 was instituted. 4. After investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad where charge was framed u/s 323/34/324/325/326 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 Padma Lochan Mahato has stated that on hearing the cry of alarm he had reached the place of occurrence and saw the petitioner, Bodi Das and Ratan Das assaulting Dasrath Das. This witness had stated that Ratan Das had hit Dasrath Das on the head with a rod, Urmila Devi was assaulted by Bodi Das in the legs and the petitioner had assaulted Sati Bala Devi with a rod in between two fingers as well as on her left hand and head whereas Bodi Das had assaulted Shivshankar Das on his hand. P.W.2 Habu Das has also supported the factum of occurrence as disclosed by P.W.1 Padma Lochan Mahato. P.W.2 Habu Das has also supported the factum of occurrence as disclosed by P.W.1 Padma Lochan Mahato. Similar is the statement of Basu Rajwar (P.W.4) as also Narendra Das who is the informant and an eye witness and who has been examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 Dr. Chandra Mohan Sinha was a medical officer in P.M.C.H., Dhanbad who had examined Urmila Devi, Dasrath Das, Shivshankar Das and Sati Bala Devi and had found several injuries some simple and some grievous on their person. P.W.6 Dashrath Das is an injured eye witness who has supported the version of assault by the accused persons including the petitioner. P.W.7 Urmila Devi is an injured eye witness who has also given a vivid description of the occurrence and have specifically stated about the role of each of the accused in committing the assault. 7. The defence had examined one witness namely Ratan Das who has proved the certified copy of the judgment in C.P. Case No. 68 of 1985 in which the members of the informant party were convicted and were let off after due admonition. 8. The prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt led to conviction of the petitioner and others vide judgment dated 16.02.1994 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The other convicts were also found guilty u/s 324/325 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly. 9. The petitioner and the other convicts had preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1994 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIth, Dhanbad on 26.04.2002 with some modification in the sentence so imposed. 10. It is the case of the defence that no injury by any hard and blunt substance was found on the finger of Sati Bala Devi and therefore the injury report does not corroborate the allegation of assault made against the petitioner. Further defence case is that P.W.1 cannot be believed as he had come out from the house after the alleged occurrence had started. It is also the case of the defence that for the same occurrence the informant party was convicted and two of the injured persons namely Sati Bala Devi and Shivshankar Das were never examined by the prosecution. The further defence case is that the Investigating Officer was also not examined. 11. It is also the case of the defence that for the same occurrence the informant party was convicted and two of the injured persons namely Sati Bala Devi and Shivshankar Das were never examined by the prosecution. The further defence case is that the Investigating Officer was also not examined. 11. It appears that P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are all eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.6 and P.W.7 are infact the injured eye witnesses. These witnesses have categorically stated about the manner of assault committed by the accused persons including the petitioner and specific role has been attributed to each of the accused persons including the petitioner who is said to have assaulted Sati Bala Devi in between her two fingers with a rod. The said Sati Bala Devi has not been examined by the prosecution but the same would not be fatal to the prosecution, in view of the evidence of the eye witnesses who have stated about the role played by the petitioner in inflicting injuries upon Sati Bala Devi and the injury reports were also proved by the Doctor P.W.5 which corroborates the version of the witnesses examined with respect to the exact role of the petitioner. There may be some discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses but such minor discrepancies have to be brushed aside in the larger perspective in so much so the incident having admittedly taken place which is further fortified by the conviction of the informant party for the same occurrence in connection with C.P. Case No. 65 of 1985. Although Sati Bala Devi was never examined by the prosecution but the evidence of the other witnesses do prove that the petitioner was instrumental in inflicting injuries upon Sati Bala Devi. The evidence of the eye witnesses therefore are clear, cogent and unadulterated and therefore the petitioner had rightly been convicted for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code which was affirmed in appeal and which is subsequently sustained by this Court. 13. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1985 and have undergone sufficient mental agony due to long pendency of the case. The petitioner also for some time remained in custody. 14. 13. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1985 and have undergone sufficient mental agony due to long pendency of the case. The petitioner also for some time remained in custody. 14. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 15. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.