JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf the petitioners. However, Md. A. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal no. 152 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No. 1396 of 1991 (T.R. No. 160 of 1997) has been affirmed. 3. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 13.09.1991 while the informant and his brother were sitting in the house the petitioners along with one Birendra Singh had come to his house armed with lathi and began to hurl abuses accusing them of trespassing their cattle in their field. It is alleged that in the meantime the brother of the informant had come out from the house and the accused persons had assaulted him with lathi and when the informant come to rescue him he was also assaulted on his head and other parts of the body. Further allegation has been leveled that the wife of the informant who was also assaulted which led her to suffering a fracture injury. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. No. 1396 of 1991 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners, pursuant to which cognizance was taken. The learned trial court on being satisfied that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts had convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 325, 323, 341 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year u/s 325 of the I.P.C., S.I. for six months u/s 323 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for one month each u/s 341 and 447 of the I.P.C. The petitioners have preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 152 of 1997 which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau on 13.07.2000. 4. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The informant was not examined since he had already died. The trial proceeded only against the petitioners as one of the co-accused Birendra Singh had also died during the trial. 4. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The informant was not examined since he had already died. The trial proceeded only against the petitioners as one of the co-accused Birendra Singh had also died during the trial. The star witness in the trial was the brother of the informant namely Sudeshwar Singh (P.W.4) and the wife of informant namely Dhanwanti Kunwar who was arrayed as P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.4 being eye witnesses have given a clear description with respect to the assault committed by the petitioners upon the informant as well as upon P.W.2 and P.W.4. P.W.4 and the informant was examined by Doctor Kanhaiya Singh who was examined as P.W.8 and he had found as many as five injuries on the person of P.W.4 whereas three injuries were found in the person of the informant. Although the Doctor who had examined P.W.2 was not produced during trial but the injury report of P.W.2 had been marked as Exhibit-3 which suggest that she had received a grievous injury on her hand. Apart from the injured witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.4 the other witnesses namely Santosh Kumar Singh (P.W.1), Rajkumari Devi (P.W.6) and Ram Deo Mahto (P.W.3) are also eye witnesses. P.W.1 Santosh Kumar Singh is the son of the informant whereas P.W.6 Rajkumari Devi is the daughter of the informant. P.W.3 Ram Deo Mahto is an independent witness who has stated about the manner of assault upon the injured persons. P.W.5 and P.W.9 are formal witnesses. 5. The defence had taken a plea that non-examination of the Investigation Officer and the Doctor who had examined P.W.2 had caused great prejudice to the defence but the evidence of the other eye witnesses and the injury which was suffered by P.W.2, P.W.4 and the informant have been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer or for that matter the non-examination of the Doctor who had examined P.W.2 has not caused any prejudice to the defence. In view of the consistent evidence which has been brought by the prosecution the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 325, 323, 341 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them accordingly. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 6. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 6. This court has given a considerable thought with respect to the rigors of the prosecution which have been faced by the petitioners, since the case was instituted in the year 1991. However, considering the brutality of the assault committed upon three injured persons no leniency ought to be shown to the petitioners with respect to the sentence which has been awarded by the learned trial court. As a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, this application fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.