ORDER : Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 94/1992/24/2002 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned Assistant Session Judge, Jamtara on 25.09.1992 in Session Case No. 208 of 1980 convicting the petitioner and five others for the offences under Sections 307/34, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the villagers were on patrolling duty on 20.06.1979. It is alleged that one jackfruit belonging to Basudev Mishra was picked up by someone. At this Basudev Mishra had started abusing the patrolling party whereupon a meeting was called. In course of the meeting an altercation ensued which resulted in the petitioner giving a knife blow on the ribs of Shib Charan Panda and another blow on the upper part of his eyes. It is alleged that the other accused persons thereafter started assault upon Shib Charan Panda with lathi. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 5 of 1979 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Sections 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions wherein charge was framed and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W.1, Munsi Mondal, P.W.2, Mahabir Mondal and P.W.3, Ambika Prasad Tiwari did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. 7. P.W.4, Mahanand Turi @ Binda Turi, had deposed that he was on patrolling duty in the village along with 10-14 persons when the accused Basudev Mishra started abusing the patrolling party for plucking jackfruit. He had stated that the matter was informed to the Mukhia and Sarpanch and a meeting was organized in the school. 7. P.W.4, Mahanand Turi @ Binda Turi, had deposed that he was on patrolling duty in the village along with 10-14 persons when the accused Basudev Mishra started abusing the patrolling party for plucking jackfruit. He had stated that the matter was informed to the Mukhia and Sarpanch and a meeting was organized in the school. In course of discussions, Basudev Mishra became angry and ordered for assaulting the Mukhia and subsequent thereto the petitioner assaulted the Mukhia Shiv Charan Panda with a knife who sustained injury on his left eye. This witness has also stated that the petitioner had also assaulted him on the left thumb with a knife. He had further stated that others had also committed assault. He had stated that Basudev Mishra had contested the election against Shiv Charan Panda unsuccessfully for the gram panchayat and on account of his grudge the incident of assault had occurred. 8. P.W.5, Lakhi Narayan Panda, is the elder brother of Shiv Charan Panda. This witness had disclosed that Shiv Charan Panda was elected as a Mukhia of Koiridih and prior to him Basudev Mishra was the Mukhia. This witness had supported the prosecution case and had stated that a meeting was organized in which at the instigation of Basudev Mishra the petitioner had assaulted Shiv Charan Panda with a knife and the other accused persons had also committed assault. 9. P.W.6, Nursing Upadhaya, had stated that since Basudev Mishra had alleged that the patrolling party had plucked jackfruit and due to the said reason a meeting was organized. This witness was declared hostile as he did not support the occurrence. 10. P.W.7, Shiv Charan Panda, is an injured eye-witness who had stated that Basudev Mishra was abusing the patrolling party on the allegation that a jackfruit had been plucked. He has further stated that a meeting was organized and in course of holding discussions Basudev Mishra had ordered his henchmen to commit assault. He had further deposed that the petitioner had given a knife blow on his back and the others also started assaulting with lathi and he became unconscious. This witness had disclosed that in the Panchayat election Basudev Mishra was also a contestant. 11. P.W.8, Biseshwar Marandi, is a formal witness who had proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-2. 12. P.W.9, Dr. M.P. Lal, was posted at Narayanpur as Civil Assistant Surgeon from 1973 to 1985. This witness had disclosed that in the Panchayat election Basudev Mishra was also a contestant. 11. P.W.8, Biseshwar Marandi, is a formal witness who had proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-2. 12. P.W.9, Dr. M.P. Lal, was posted at Narayanpur as Civil Assistant Surgeon from 1973 to 1985. This witness had referred the injured Shiv Charan Panda to Dhanbad hospital. He had proved the writing and signature of Dr. S.P. Sinha who had prepared the injury report. 13. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury report was not properly proved as the doctor who had examined the injured P.W.7 was not examined and, therefore, in such circumstance the petitioner cannot be saddled for committing an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that there was no intention to commit the murder of P.W.7 as there was no previous meeting of mind for committing such offence. Learned counsel further submits that there was no repetition of blows upon P.W.7 which further dilutes the case of the prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence and therefore, the petitioner deserves acquittal from the criminal case. 14. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 15. It has been established by the evidence of the witnesses that the dispute had taken place on account of plucking of jackfruit while the patrolling party was on duty leading to calling of a meeting in which at the instigation of Basudev Mishra assault was committed upon Shiv Charan Panda with a knife by the petitioner and with lathi by the other accused persons. The presence of knife with the petitioner goes to show that there was premeditated plan to commit the offence. The injury report which has been marked as Exhibit-3 proves that penetrating injury on the right side of the chest was found on the person of P.W.7 which was deep and the same was opined to be grievous in nature caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The injury report prepared by Dr. S.P. Sinha was proved by P.W.9 Dr. M.P. Lal who was conversant with the writing and signature of Dr. S.P. Sinha and, therefore, non-examination of the doctor concerned, does not prove fatal to the prosecution. The injury report prepared by Dr. S.P. Sinha was proved by P.W.9 Dr. M.P. Lal who was conversant with the writing and signature of Dr. S.P. Sinha and, therefore, non-examination of the doctor concerned, does not prove fatal to the prosecution. Similarly the witnesses examined by the prosecution have consistently and categorically disclosed about the place of occurrence and the specific role of the petitioner in giving a knife blow to P.W.7 and, therefore, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has also not caused any prejudice to the defence. 16. Thus on consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code which has been affirmed in appeal. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is, hereby, sustained. 17. So far as the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the prosecution case since the year 1979 and have also remained for sometime in custody. Although the injury which has been sustained by P.W.7 on account of the assault committed by the petitioner was grievous but on giving my anxious consideration to the age of the petitioner who must be more than sixty five years as of now and the case being pending for almost four decades the sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered. 18. Accordingly, in the backdrop of what has been stated above, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 19. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.