JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2008, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Porahat, Chaibasa in connection with Chakradharpur P. S. Case No. 35 of 2006 corresponding to G. R. No. 82 of 2006 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 427 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and under Sections 325 & 452 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 15 days has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner had entered into the house of the informant and demanded wages. It has been alleged that he has been told to come on the next date at which he was abused by the petitioner and another person. Further allegation has been levelled that on protest, informant was assaulted with a danda by the petitioner and he also instigated others to assault the informant. It has been alleged that the accused persons had taken away Rs. 4,000/- and a wrist watch from the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chakradharpur P. S. Case No. 35 of 2006 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed under Sections 452, 341, 323, 325, 379 and 427 of I.P.C. 5. In course of trial, 6 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Awadh Prasad is the informant who has stated that the incident had taken place on 19.03.2006 at about 11 A.M. The informant was posted as a Junior Engineer in NREP. He was in his house when the petitioner knocked at the door and on opening the door the petitioner and some other persons had entered and demanded an explanation as to why payment was not made to the labourers. He has stated that reply was given by him that there was not enough money available and the payment shall be made on the next day. He has stated that reply was given by him that there was not enough money available and the payment shall be made on the next day. He has further stated that he was abused and thereafter assaulted by the petitioner and others and the petitioner had specifically assaulted him with a danda. He has also stated that on alarm, other persons had assembled at which the miscreants had fled away. He has deposed that some money and his wrist watch was found missing. The motive as per this witness is that this witness was entrusted to construct a road under NREP and the petitioner had demanded an extortion money of Rs. 50,000/-. P.W. 2 – Biswanath Prasad has stated that when he reached near the place of occurrence, he found some persons coming out from the house of the informant. He has stated that on inquiry, the informant had told him that the petitioner had quarreled with him. P.W. 3 – Bhuneshwar Mahato has deposed that when he was returning from the hospital, he had seen the crowd of 40-50 persons gathered near the house of the informant. He has further stated that the informant had told him about the assault committed upon him by the petitioners and the others. P.W. 4 – Dr. Yadunandan Singh is the doctor who had examined the informant on 19.03.2006 at 12:45 P.M. and had found the following injuries : (A) Abrasion and swelling on the right hand lateral side 4 cm x 4 cm. Red in colour (B) Swelling 4cm x 2 cm on right upper back. Red in colour. (C) Swelling on right side face 4cm x 4cm red in colour. (D) Swelling of right little finger at the bose. He found that injury no. B & C were simple and injury no. A was detected to be grievous in nature. P.W. 5 – Ashok Kumar is the Investigating Officer who had recorded the re-statement of the informant and sent him to hospital for treatment. He has also received the injury report with the X-ray plate. He has stated that he had visited the place of occurrence and had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. P.W. 6 – Sarwan Nehal @ Naju did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. He has also received the injury report with the X-ray plate. He has stated that he had visited the place of occurrence and had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. P.W. 6 – Sarwan Nehal @ Naju did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. The defence has taken a plea that the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 1. It has also been stated that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution do not appear to be trustworthy. 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in this application. 8. The conviction of the petitioner rests upon the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the informant and who has given a vivid description of the manner of assault and the participation of the petitioners in committing the assault. In fact the evidence of P.W. 1 also suggests that there was a motive behind the incident as the petitioner was entrusted with a scheme under NREP and the petitioner had demanded extortion money which was refused and which led to the incident. P.W. 2 had seen the petitioner coming out from the house of the P.W. 1 and therefore the presence of the petitioner in the house of the informant has been sufficiently established and the same has also been supported by the evidence of P.W. 3 who was intimated about the incident by the crowd which had gathered at the place of occurrence. Since the presence of the petitioner in the house of the informant at the date and time alleged by the informant has been established beyond doubt, the question arises as to whether the petitioner has indeed committed assault upon the informant which led to his conviction under Section 325 of I.P.C. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that the informant was found to have received several injuries and the injury no. A was found to be grievous as the same was a fracture injury upon the right hand and therefore, the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. The question of assault having taken place is further substantiated by the investigation by the Investigating Officer who had described the place of occurrence and who had found various articles scattered all over the room. The question of assault having taken place is further substantiated by the investigation by the Investigating Officer who had described the place of occurrence and who had found various articles scattered all over the room. Therefore, the surroundings circumstances coupled with the evidence of P.W. 1 and doctor (P.W. 4) is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has indeed committed an assault by a danda upon the informant and therefore, he was rightly convicted under Sections 452, 341, 435 and 427 of I.P.C. The same is hereby sustained. 9. So far as the sentence which has been meted out to the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the assault was not committed on any vital part of the body of the informant and the informant had suffered a fracture injury on his hand. The petitioner has also remained in custody for some time and considering the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by him. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.