JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IInd, Bokaro at Chas in Cr. Appeal No. 63/98, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 22.8.98, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro at Chas in G.R. Case No. 274/93, by which the petitioner no. 1 has been convicted under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under section 323 of IPC, has been set aside only to the extent of conviction maintained under section 341 of IPC and sentence has been modified with respect to Section 325 of IPC. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that conviction is based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 4 and 5, who claim to be eye witnesses. It has further been submitted that place of occurrence itself has not been established in view of contradictory versions given by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who all are interested witnesses and P.Ws 1 and 2 are independent witnesses. Learned counsel submits that investigating officer of the case has not been examined and in view of such non examination, the same has caused prejudice to the defence as the place of occurrence has not been established. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been implicated only on account of previous enmity which was existing between the petitioners and the informant. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It appears that the petitioners had assaulted the informant-Chepa Modi who had been given a lathi blow on the head and hand by the petitioner no. 1. Father and brother of the informant were assaulted by other two petitioners. however, they were rescued at the intervention of one villager-Hari Pada Modi. FIR also discloses that the occurrence took place on account of previous enmity existing between the parties. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after cognizance was taken, the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class for trial. After conclusion of the trial, petitioner no. FIR also discloses that the occurrence took place on account of previous enmity existing between the parties. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after cognizance was taken, the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class for trial. After conclusion of the trial, petitioner no. 1 was found guilty for the offence under section 323, 341 and 325 and was given a maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for two years under section 325 IPC. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they were convicted for the offence under sections 323 and 341 of IPC and were given a maximum sentence of simple imprisonment of six months under section 323 of IPC. An appeal was preferred being Cr. Appeal No. 63 of 1998, in which judgment was passed on 16th June, 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Bokaro at Chas acquitting the petitioners for the offence under section 341 of IPC and modifying the sentence awarded to the petitioners under section 323 and 325 of IPC by reducing the sentence under section 323 of IPC to simple imprisonment for one month and one year under section 325 of IPC so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. 6. In course of trial, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. P.Ws-1 and 2 are independent witnesses, whereas P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 are the informant and other two injured persons including the father of the informant. P.Ws 1 and 2 have categorically stated about the entry made by the petitioners and the informant was assaulted on the hand as well as his left hand by the petitioner no. 1 and other petitioners had assaulted P.Ws 4 and P.Ws 5. It further appears that the prosecution case has been supported by the independent witnesses P.Ws 1 and 2 who have also stated the manner of assault made by the petitioners. The doctor, who has been examined as P.W-6, has opined that the informant P.W-3 has suffered fracture injury. Thus, there appears to be consistent evidence on record with respect to manner of assault, the genesis of occurrence as well as the injury suffered by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and merely because they are related with each other, that would not dilute the statements made by them. Thus, there appears to be consistent evidence on record with respect to manner of assault, the genesis of occurrence as well as the injury suffered by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and merely because they are related with each other, that would not dilute the statements made by them. Such circumstance would also lead to a conclusion that no prejudice has caused to the defence on account of non examination of the investigating officer. Learned court below therefore has rightly held the petitioners guilty for the offence under sections 323 and 325 of IPC and there being no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, as regards the sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioners, it has been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 had remained in custody for a period of about 15 days whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have remained in custody for a period of about 20 days. 8. Considering the fact that the instant case was instituted in the year 1993 and more than two decades have elapsed and since the petitioners are facing rigors of prosecution for a considerable length of time coupled with the period of custody that has been undergone by the petitioners, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and modified by the learned appellate court is further modified to the period already undergone. This application is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.