JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1992 modifying the judgment dated 27.04.1992 passed by the learned trial Court in S.T. No. 309 of 1987 arising out of Palamau P.S. Case No. 158 of 1985 whereby the petitioner No. 1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years whereas other petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 324/149 of WC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half years. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 26.04.1985 at 6:30 p.m. a meeting of the clan was called for at the Gaddi of Kashinath Agrawal and the informant was also one of the invitees. It has been alleged that one Bhagwan Prasad Agrawal had settled the marriage of his son at Patna and subsequently he had settled the marriage of his son at Ranchi. In the meeting a proposal had come that he had taken dowry in both the marriage and considering the said fact, the meeting was called. It has been alleged that on 26.04.1985. Bhagwan Prasad Agrawal and his son (petitioner No.1) had abused Kashinath Agrawal and pulled his leg as a result of which meeting was cancelled. Later on meeting was called on 26.06.1985 and after the same came to an end and when the informant was, returning to his house, the petitioner No. 1 wanted to catch hold of the informant and while the informant rushed to the shop of Kashi Nath Agrawal, the petitioner No. 1 had assaulted the informant by a knife on his back. It has been alleged that after the informant had entered into the shop, the petitioners had also entered to kill him, but Kashi Nath Agrawal has shut the shop which resulted in the informant being saved from the accused persons. 4. The allegations made in the FIR resulted in institution of G.R No. 635 of 1985. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC. 4. The allegations made in the FIR resulted in institution of G.R No. 635 of 1985. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.04.1992 passed in S.T. No. 309 of 1987 had convicted the petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Sections 148 and 307 of IPC, whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC and all the petitioners were sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners resulted in acquitting the accused persons from the offence under Section 307 of IPC and petitioner No. 1 was held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were found guilty for the offence under Section 324/149 of IPC and their sentences were accordingly, modified. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that PWs 1 and 2 had turned hostile and the entire conviction is based upon the evidence of PW 4, the informant. He further submits that the injuries suffered by the informant were opined to be simple in nature which belies the fact that there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to commit assault upon the informant. 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 petitioner be reduced considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution since the year 1985 and have also remained for some time in custody. 6. Learned A. P. P. for the State opposed the prayer. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of his case. PW I-Om Prakash Agrawal and PW 2-Kashi Nath Agrawal did not support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. PW 3-Kishori Law was tendered by the prosecution. PW 4-Nand Gopal Prasad is the informant of the case who had disclosed about the background leading to holding of the meeting on 26.04.1985. PW I-Om Prakash Agrawal and PW 2-Kashi Nath Agrawal did not support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. PW 3-Kishori Law was tendered by the prosecution. PW 4-Nand Gopal Prasad is the informant of the case who had disclosed about the background leading to holding of the meeting on 26.04.1985. This witness has stated that after the meeting while he was returning home, the petitioner No. 1 abused and assaulted him and when out of fear the petitioner was running towards the shop of Kashi Nath Agrawal, the petitioner No. 1 had given a knife blow on his back near the shoulder. This witness has further stated that after the assault, he was taken to Sadar Hospital, where he had given fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit 1. PW 5-Dr. Arun Shukla had examined the informant and had found a incised wound on the back about 6" below of right scapula and the injury was found to be simple in nature caused by a sharp cutting weapon. PW 6-D.P. Singh is the I.O of the case who has proved the formal FIR, fardbeyan as well as endorsements on the fardbeyan. Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. He has deposed that he has visited the place of occurrence and found some blood stains on the road as well as in the shop of Kashi Nath Agrawal. He has also taken the statement of witnesses and after finding the allegations to be true has submitted - charge-sheet against the petitioners. 8. It appears that the conviction of the petitioners is based upon the evidence of PW 4, the informant. This witness has categorically stated that while he was returning after completion of the meeting, he was assaulted by the accused persons including the petitioner No. 1 who had given the knife blow on the back below the shoulder. The injury report which has been marked as Exhibit 2 corroborates the statement of the informant inasmuch as, an incised wound was found and which was caused by sharp cutting weapon. Although, PWs 1 and 2 who are important witnesses have been declared hostile and PW 3 was tendered by the prosecution, but the evidence of sole witness PW 4 being corroborated by the evidences of PWs 5 and 6 assumes significance which had rightly led to his conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. So far as the petitioner Nos. So far as the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they had accompanied the petitioner when the assault had taken place upon the informant and had also chased the informant towards the shop and therefore, they were also rightly convicted under Section 324 of IPC with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. The evidence led by the prosecution therefore being consistent and corroborative, the petitioners were rightly convicted by the learned appellate Court for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 9. There being no reason to differ from the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below, the same are hereby sustained. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution from the year 1985 and have also remained for some time in custody and the injury suffered by the PW 4 (informant) has been opined to be simple in nature and it was not on any vital part of the body. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.