JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rohit Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No.15/1995 by 59/1999 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No.473 of 1983 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 323 of the I.P.C. and directing them to execute the bonds of Rs.1,000/- with two sureties for a period of one year to maintain peace and good behaviour under the Probation of Offenders Act has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incident had taken place on 24.11.1983 and the complaint case was lodged without explaining the cause of such delay. Learned counsel submits that out of seven witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-5 all are related to the informant P.W-6. It has, therefore, been submitted that on account of delay in instituting the case coupled with the fact that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. It appears that on 24.11.1983 when the complainant was harvesting paddy, the accused persons on the objection raised by the daughter and daughter-in-law of the complainant with respect to scattering of the harvested paddy had assaulted the daughter-in-law. When the complainant and Naresh Rai went there to save them, all the accused persons had assaulted them. It is also alleged that the injured persons had approached the police station from where they were sent to the hospital for medical treatment. 5. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, P.C.R. Case No.473 of 1983 was instituted in which upon conducting an inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 147 and 323 of the IPC. In course of trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC and were convicted and sentenced. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Cr. Appeal No.15/1995 by 59/1999 was dismissed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 25.06.2002. 6. It appears that seven witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Cr. Appeal No.15/1995 by 59/1999 was dismissed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 25.06.2002. 6. It appears that seven witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1 is the eye witness who has stated that when his father (P.W-6) had called him, he had rushed to the place of occurrence, where he had found that all the accused persons were dragging his sister-in-law by catching hold of her hair. This witness had also seen that other accused persons were assaulting his father with lathi and rod. P.W.-1 has further stated that he has one of the victim who was also assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.-2 is also an eye witness who had narrated about the incident of assault made by the accused persons. P.W.-3 Sukdeo Mahra is a here-say witness who has come to know about the occurrence from his sister-in-law and thereafter the injured persons were shifted to the police station and from there they were sent to the hospital for treatment. P.W-4 Lalita Devi was also one of the person who was cutting paddy in the field, when the objection was raised with respect to the scattering of the crop at which the accused persons has committed assault. P.W-5 Karman Das is a rickshaw puller who had taken the injured P.W.-6 Hemraj Mahra to the police station. This witness has also stated that by another rickshaw, two other injured persons were also carried. P.W.-6 is Hemraj Mahra who has stated in detail about the assault committed upon him as well as on the daughter and daughter-in-law by the accused persons. P.W.6A is the doctor Ram Gopal Singh who had examined P.W.-6 and has found certain injuries on the person. This witness had also examined Naresh Mahra (P.W-1) and had found lacerated injury. The evidence of the witnesses are consistent with respect to the manner of incident and the manner of assault committed by the accused persons upon the injured persons. The injury as has been stated by the witnesses have been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the doctor (P.W.-6A). Merely because no independent witness has been examined by the complainant the same by itself would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of the other witnesses. The injury as has been stated by the witnesses have been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the doctor (P.W.-6A). Merely because no independent witness has been examined by the complainant the same by itself would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of the other witnesses. It is no doubt true that P.Ws.1 to 5 all are related to P.W-6 complainant as it would appear from the evidence of P.Ws.-1 to 5 as their evidences were tested in course of cross-examination and in view of the consistency of their evidences the same has rightly been relied upon by the learned courts below while convicting the petitioners. So far as the delay in instituting the complaint case is concerned, it appears that the incident had taken place on 24.11.1983 after which the complainant along with other persons were taken to the police station and thereafter to the hospital and P.W-6 was released as per the version of P.W.-1 on 01.12.1983. The complaint case was instituted just five days after the release of P.W.-6. It has also been stated that on account of non-registration of the first information report by the police, P.W.-6 was constrained to file the complaint case. 7. Since sufficient reason has been explained by the complainant with respect to the delay in instituting the complaint case, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in that respect is also negated. In view of the consistent evidence on record as has been discussed above, the learned courts below have rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 323 of the I.P.C. and there being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment and order of conviction which has been affirmed in appeal is sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, since the judgment of the learned trial court is of the year 1995 and more than two decades have lapsed, the petitioners are not required to execute any bond as has been directed by the learned trial court. 8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.