JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2004, passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2003, 07/2004, whereby and whereunder judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.7.2003, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in G.R. No. 30 of 1996, by which the petitioner had been convicted for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years has been affirmed. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that when the informant saw the petitioner and his wife assaulting his mother he tried to save his mother, at which petitioner had given a blow with his 'khanti' on his forehead whereas his wife had assaulted him with a lathi on his left arm. It is alleged that when the father of the informant intervened, wife of the petitioner assaulted him with lathi. However, since other persons had come, the informant and his parents were somehow saved. The reason for the occurrence as has been disclosed in the FIR is that the petitioner had cut the plum tree which was protested by the mother of the informant and which resulted in the occurrence. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Thakur Gangati P.S. Case No. 6 of 1996 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of chargesheet under section 323, 324, 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. However, by an order dated 7.8.1997, case was remitted to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that no case under section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Charge was framed under section 326/34 of IPC and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1-Kishore Mandal is the father of the informant who had stated that he saw the petitioner assaulting his wife with a Khanti, at which, his son went for rescue and he was assaulted with a 'Khanti' on the head by the petitioner. This witness had also stated that petitioner had also assaulted him when he went to the place of occurrence. This witness had also stated that petitioner had also assaulted him when he went to the place of occurrence. He had also stated that with respect to the same occurrence, wife of the petitioner has also filed a counter case. P.W-2-Shiv Narayan Mandal is a formal witness. P.W-3-Sonia Devi is the mother of the informant who is also an injured. She has stated that on account of her plum tree being cut down by the petitioner, a protest was made, at which the petitioner and his wife had assaulted her. She has deposed that when her son went to rescue her, petitioner had assaulted him with a 'Khanti' on his head. P.W-4-Hit Lal Mandal has stated that on alarm when he reached to the place of occurrence he saw head injury upon the informant as well as his mother Sonia Devi. This witness had deposed that for the same occurence, a counter case has been filed by the wife of the petitioner. P.W-5-Ajay Kumar Mandal is the informant, who had stated that on trying to save his mother from the clutches of the petitioner and his wife, he was assaulted by the petitioner with a Khanti. This witness had proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-3. P.W-6-Tarun Kumar Mishra had examined the informant and his parents and had found injuries on their person. He had also found a grievous injury upon the informant. This witness had proved the injury report, which has been marked as Ext-4, 4/1 and 4/2. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.W. 1, P.W-3 and P.W-5 are all interested witnesses being related to each other and therefore their testimony should have been disbelieved by the learned trial court. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the incident had taken place on account of the alleged cutting of plum tree by the petitioner, which substantiates the fact that there was previous enmity and therefore the petitioner on account of such enmity has been falsely implicated. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined, which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined, which has caused prejudice to the defence. In alternative, an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be suitably modified considering the fact that petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1996. 6. Learned A.P.P has supported the impugned order. 7. It appears that P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W-5 have consistently stated about the assault committed upon them by the petitioner. The dispute as it seems was with respect to cutting down of a plum tree , at which a protest was made by the P.W-3 leading to the occurrence. The medical evidence substantiates the allegation in as much as several injuries were found on the person of P.W-3 and P.W-5. The petitioner is alleged to have given a 'Khanti' blow on the forehead of the informant and the injury which was suffered by the informant was opined to be grievous in nature by P.W-6. Although, the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined but the same by itself would not dilute the prosecution case since P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W-5 have been very categorical and clear with respect to the place of occurrence and the incident having taken place. Even P.W-4, who is a chance witness, on reaching the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm had found injury on the person of P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W-5. Thus the evidence of the prosecution is consistent and corroborative and taking into consideration such fact the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 326 of IPC, which has subsequently been affirmed in appeal. 8. As regard the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears from the records that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about six months in total. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has suffered mental agony on account of pendency of the case for the last more than two decades and therefore some leniency be shown to the petitioner by modifying the sentence imposed upon him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has suffered mental agony on account of pendency of the case for the last more than two decades and therefore some leniency be shown to the petitioner by modifying the sentence imposed upon him. 9. On giving my anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, although the prosecution is lingering for the last two decades but the conduct of the petitioner in assaulting the mother of the informant and thereafter the informant as well as his father which resulted in a grievous injury having been suffered by the informant on a vital part of his body does not implore this Court to show any leniency to the petitioner. The petitioner had virtually committed an indiscriminate assault on P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W-5 with a 'Khanti' which resulted in injury having been suffered by all of them. In such circumstances therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the sentence imposed upon the petitioner either. Accordingly, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.