JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2001 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur at Deoghar in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 194 of 1996 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each section and the petitioner no. 1 has been further convicted under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000 has been affirmed. 3. It has been alleged in the FIR that on 21.12.1996, the petitioners had abused the informant and also abused her daughter and son-in-law. On being asked the reasons for abuse, the petitioner no. 1 assaulted with a lathi on the daughter of the informant (P.W. 7). The son-in-law of the informant was assaulted by the petitioner no. 2 and 3 with lathi and fists and the petitioner no. 4 had caught the hair of the informant and threw her on the ground. It has been alleged that on 19.12.1996 the son of the informant was assaulted and when the informant and her daughter came to save him, they were also assaulted. The reasons stated in the FIR for the occurrence is that the children of the petitioners used to cause damage to the straw kept by the informant. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 194 of 1996 was instituted. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, charges were framed and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1-Mahesh Prasad Lal has stated that on 21.12.1996 at about 6 P.M. on alarm he had gone to the house of the informant and saw the accused persons assaulting the informant. He has deposed that when the daughter of the informant went to rescue her, she was also assaulted. The same treatment was meted out to the husband of Krishna Devi when he went to save her and his daughter. He has deposed that when the daughter of the informant went to rescue her, she was also assaulted. The same treatment was meted out to the husband of Krishna Devi when he went to save her and his daughter. P.W. 2-Awadhesh Kumar Sinha has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was at his in-law's place. He has deposed that the accused persons had entered inside the house and abused her mother-in-law. The petitioner no. 4 had caught hold of the hair of his mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 1 assaulted her with a lathi. When the wife of this witness intervened, she was assaulted by petitioner no. 1 with lathi on her mouth resulting in her two teeth getting broken. This witness was also assaulted by petitioner no. 1 and Pyare Lal and Laddu Lal. P.W. 3-Ram Chandra Prasad has fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4-Kali Kinkar Prasad is the son of the informant who had stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons had entered into the house and abused his mother. He has further stated that the petitioner no. 1 had given a lathi blow upon her sister and the other accused persons had also committed assault. P.W. 5-Ram Niranjan Prasad has also fully supported the prosecution case with respect to the assault committed by the accused persons. P.W. 6-Krishna Devi is the daughter of the informant who has stated that on 21.12.1996 at about 6 P.M., the accused persons after entering into the house had assaulted her mother and when she tried to save her mother, petitioner no. 1 assaulted her on her mouth with a lathi. The assault resulted in the informant getting her two teeth broken. She has also stated that when her husband came to her rescue, he was also assaulted with a lathi by the petitioner no. 1 which led to fracture of his finger. She has further disclosed that her brother Kali Kinkar Prasad was also subjected to assault by the accused persons. P.W. 7-Madhuri Devi is the informant who has stated that she was abused by the accused persons and petitioner no. 4 had caught her hair and pulled her towards the earth. She has also stated that the petitioner no. 1 assaulted her with a lathi on her back whereas accused persons had assaulted her daughter and son-in-law. P.W. 8-Dr. P.W. 7-Madhuri Devi is the informant who has stated that she was abused by the accused persons and petitioner no. 4 had caught her hair and pulled her towards the earth. She has also stated that the petitioner no. 1 assaulted her with a lathi on her back whereas accused persons had assaulted her daughter and son-in-law. P.W. 8-Dr. Bishwanath Das had examined P.W. 2, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. So far as the P.W. 6 is concerned, the injury no. 1 was opined to be grievous and the injuries upon P.W. 7 were found to be simple in nature. As regards the injury suffered by the P.W. 2 is concerned, the injury no. 1 was opined to be grievous. P.W. 9-Md. Ahmad is the Investigating Officer of the case who had recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the injured for treatment, obtained the injury reports and visited the place of occurrence and having found the allegations to be true has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that the manner of occurrence has also not been consistently stated and the part played by each of the petitioners and if proper appreciation is made to the evidence available on record, the petitioners would be found having not taken part in committing the offence. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be suitably modified. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 8. The occurrence seems to have been sufficiently proved by virtue of the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7. P.W. 2, P.W. 6 & P.W. 7 are the injured eye-witnesses who have specifically taken the name of all the accused persons including the petitioner no. 1 of committing assault upon these persons. The petitioner no. 1 is alleged to have assaulted P.W. 6 with a lathi on her mouth which led to her teeth getting broken and petitioner no. 1 is also alleged to have committed the fracture injury suffered by P.W.2. 1 of committing assault upon these persons. The petitioner no. 1 is alleged to have assaulted P.W. 6 with a lathi on her mouth which led to her teeth getting broken and petitioner no. 1 is also alleged to have committed the fracture injury suffered by P.W.2. The medical evidence fully corroborates the allegations made against the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 had therefore rightly been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. which was also upheld by the learned appellate court. As regards the other petitioners are concerned, their role has also been specified leading to their conviction under Section 448/323 of I.P.C. 9. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners and its affirmation in appeal, the same are hereby sustained. However, as regards the period of sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner no. 1, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 is facing rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and has also remained for some time in custody. Regard being had to the aforesaid, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner no. 1 is modified to the period already undergone. So far as the rest petitioners are concerned, (petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4) only a sentence of fine has been imposed upon them and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed upon these petitioners. 10. As a result of the discussions made here-in-above, this application stands dismissed with the modification in sentence so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned.