ORDER : Heard Mr. Faisal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal no. 159 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1142 of 1996 (T.R. No. 97 of 1997) dated 29.07.1997 has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only eye witness to the occurrence informant was examined as P.W.1. It has been submitted that the parties were on inimical terms and therefore the false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that the original injury report was deliberately not produced by the prosecution and the entire conviction is based on false and fabricated injury report which has been exhibited as the behest of the Investigating Officer (P.W.6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injuries which were found on the person (P.W.1) were opined to be simple in nature. It has also been submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction the sentence awarded to the petitioner be modified as the petitioner has remained for a month in custody and is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1996. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on 24.09.1996 the informant was in his paddy field and making preparation to put fertilizer when the petitioner had objected and had opened the tunnel in order to take water in his field which was objected by the informant as a result of which the petitioner got infuriated and apart from abusing the informant has also indiscriminately given lathi blows resulting in several injuries. Based on the aforesaid allegation Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 86/96 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken. Based on the aforesaid allegation Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 86/96 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken. The learned trial court on being satisfied about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months and one month respectively. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Cr. Appeal No. 159 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj vide judgment dated 23.09.2000. 6. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the informant who has given a vivid description about the incident which had happened prior to his assault. P.W.1 has also stated about the in-discriminate lathi blows given on him by the petitioner. The alarm raised by P.W.1 was heard by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. P.W.5 is the Doctor who had on examination of P.W.1 found eight injuries on his person but all the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of the case who had referred the informant for medical examination and had also visited the place of occurrence and after examining the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor P.W.5 as well as those of P.Ws 3 and 4, although they were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. The circumstances enumerated above do suggest that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court was perfectly justify in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code. There being no cause to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the same is hereby affirmed. 7. However, as regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for a month and the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1996. Considering the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner and the period of incarceration in custody coupled with the long pendency of the case the petitioner is definitely entitled to reduction in sentence. Considering the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner and the period of incarceration in custody coupled with the long pendency of the case the petitioner is definitely entitled to reduction in sentence. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.