ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in Criminal Revision No. 612 of 2008. No one appears in the connected Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2008 for the petitioner. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. represents the State in both the cases. 2. These applications are directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.02.2008 passed in G. R. No. 1837 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad convicting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 427 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and for six months each for the offences under Sections 323 and 427 of I.P.C. has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is to the effect that on 18.07.2002 at about 6 P.M., the driver of the informant had parked his dumper bearing registration no. BR 17G/5178 in front of Bhaura Area Office and had gone to take meal. It has been alleged that in the meantime, somebody informed that 3-4 persons were breaking the wind screen of the dumper. The driver rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the petitioners and one Jitu Yadav involved in such act. When the driver protested, he was assaulted and when the informant came to the place of occurrence, he was also abused and chased away. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P. S. Case No. 168 of 2002 was instituted, in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, substance of accusation was explained to the accused under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 4. P.W. 1 – Mritunjay Mahata had deposed that when he was returning on his tractor and on reaching the place of occurrence, he had seen some persons damaging the dumper bearing registration no. BR 17G/5178 with hockey and bamboo stick. He had deposed that when the driver protested, he was abused and when the owner of the dumper came he was also abused and chased away. BR 17G/5178 with hockey and bamboo stick. He had deposed that when the driver protested, he was abused and when the owner of the dumper came he was also abused and chased away. This witness in cross-examination has stated that he had seen the occurrence. P.W. 2 - Santosh Kumar Yadav is the driver of the dumper who had deposed that on the date of occurrence, he had parked his dumper in Bhaura Area and had gone to take meal in his home. He further stated that 2 persons had come and had told him that some miscreants were breaking the wind screen of the dumper. He has further deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence and protested such act, he was assaulted by the accused. He has also stated that when the owner of the vehicle came, he was also subjected to assault. P.W. 3 - Shambhu Kumar Barnwal is the informant and the owner of the dumper, who has fully supported the occurrence. He has stated that the miscreants had damaged the head light, main wind screen, back light, looking glass and the indicator. He has also stated that when he protested, he was chased away. This witness has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. P.W. 4 - Bhola Razak and P.W. 5 - Sagar Sao did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a considerable delay in the FIR which has not been properly explained. It has also been stated that neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer were examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the present application. 7. It appears that the conviction is based upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses namely, P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. All the three witnesses have stated in unison about the petitioners being armed with hockey sticks and bamboo sticks who had damaged several parts of the dumper. It is no doubt true that the investigating officer has not been examined, but the place of occurrence has been well established as being in front of Bhaura Area Office and since the act of the petitioners has clearly been supported by the witnesses, P.W. Nos. It is no doubt true that the investigating officer has not been examined, but the place of occurrence has been well established as being in front of Bhaura Area Office and since the act of the petitioners has clearly been supported by the witnesses, P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the non-examination of the I.O. pales into insignificance. The circumstances enumerated above, therefore, has properly been considered by the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 427 of I.P.C. The same is hereby sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2002. The petitioners have also remained in custody for some time. Considering the aforesaid fact coupled with the nature of offence as alleged against the petitioners, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.