JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 2000 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petitioners appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1759 of 1994 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year has been dismissed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all interested witnesses. It has further been stated that the incident had actually taken place on account of having wine in the house of the informant. Learned counsel submits that P.Ws.-2, 3, 5 and 6 who are said to have supported the prosecution case are all interested witnesses as they are related to each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted an alternative argument on the fact that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced substantially. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of 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 14.09.1994, the petitioners had come to the house of the informant and had demanded wine for drinking as she was a wine seller. It is alleged that in the night, the petitioners had cooked meat and everyone had meat and wine and after which quarrel started with the husband of the informant Dukhan Mistry (P.W.-6) and on intervention made by the informant, accused persons went away. It is also alleged that after two hours, all the three accused persons came back and after opening the door started assaulting her husband and old grandmother and thereafter they had taken out money and ornaments kept inside the box. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No. 1759 of 1994 was instituted. After investigation culminated in submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. Case No. 1759 of 1994 was instituted. After investigation culminated in submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC. After conclusion of trial, the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No.2000 of 1997 was also dismissed. 7. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-2 Bhugali Devi is the grandmother of P.W-3 Sushila Devi who is the informant. P.W-5 Prem Rana is the brother of the informant whereas P.W-6 Dukhan Mistry is the husband of the informant. P.W-4 Chaman Lal is a hear-say witness whereas P.W-7 is a formal witness. P.W-1 is the doctor who has examined the injured. 8. It appears that P.Ws.2 and 6 are the injured witnesses who have categorically stated about the petitioners having taken part in committing assault upon these witnesses. The doctor was examined as P.W-1 who had found several injuries upon P.Ws.2 and 6 which further fortifies the oral testimony of these witnesses with respect to the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence. P.Ws.3 & 5 are the wine seller in whose shop the petitioners had cooked meat and enjoyed meat and wine and after which quarrel started and on intervention they had went away but had subsequently returned back and thereafter started assaulting P.Ws.2 and 6. The evidence P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6 are consistent with respect to the manner of assault and involvement of the petitioners in committing the assault. No major discrepancy have come out from the evidence of the witnesses being P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 and in fact evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 has been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W-1. 9. Such circumstance, therefore, points to the guilt of the petitioners and this fact has been properly appreciated by the learned trial court by convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC which was subsequently affirmed in the appeal. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the impugned judgment and order of conviction is also affirmed. 10. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the impugned judgment and order of conviction is also affirmed. However, with respect to the sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners are facing the rigours of the prosecution since the year 1994. The petitioners have also remained in custody for sometime. Considering the aforesaid fact and in the interest of justice, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 11. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.