JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, Fast Track Court No. VII in Sessions Trial No. 492 of 1995, whereby the appellant Satendra Singh along with his brother Harendra Singh, have been charged under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years. The period already undergone in course of trial shall be set off under Section 428 CrPC. However, the co-convict Harendra Singh did not prefer any appeal before this Court as after serving out the sentence, said Harendra Singh came out of the jail custody and died subsequently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Ramdhani Sharma (P.W. 1) before the Officer-in-Charge, Sonari Police Station on 05.11.1993 alleging therein that when the informant's daughter Sunaina was brooming her courtyard, the brothers of Malkhan Singh namely Satendra Singh and Harendra Singh asked her, why she is keeping debris/waste towards their house, upon which quarrel started between the parties and Sunaina questioned the accused persons, why they are abusing? In the mean time brothers of Malkhan Singh namely Harendra Singh having farsa and Satyendra Singh having gupti assaulted the informant's daughter Sunaina, on her head and cheek, causing bleeding injury, due to which, Sunaina fell down, who was brought to the police station by Bharat Singh and Ram Nath Pandey, present there. The informant has further alleged that his wife has also been assaulted on her hand by both the accused persons. The accused persons are always giving threatening with dire consequences. 3. On the basis of written report, police has registered Sonari P.S. Case No. 91 of 1993 dated 05.11.1993, under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused persons namely, Harendra Singh and Satyendra Singh. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the both accused persons vide charge sheet no. 58 of 1993, dated 30.11.1993, under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 07.02.1994 and case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 12.09.1995. 6. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the both accused persons vide charge sheet no. 58 of 1993, dated 30.11.1993, under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 07.02.1994 and case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 12.09.1995. 6. The charge has been framed against both the accused persons under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 28.06.2002, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses and adduced documentary evidence as exhibits. Ramdhani Sharma, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 1, Ganesh Sharma, son of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 2, Ramnath Pandey, a hearsay witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W. 3, Bharat Singh, a hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W. 4, Sunaina Devi, daughter of the informant and victim of the case, has been examined as P.W. 5, Ilaichi Devi, mother of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 6 and Dr. Pradip Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W. 7. Dr. Pradip Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) has examined the victim Sunaina Devi on 05.11.1993 and proved the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1, shows following injuries on the person of the victim Sunaina Devi: “(i) Sharp cutting wound, over the left parietal region on the head, size-3” x ½” x scalp deep, profuse bleeding. (ii) Penetrating wound over the left cheek, semi lunar in shape size – ½” x ¼” x skin deep. Both the injuries were found to be simple in nature, injury no. 1 caused by sharp cutting substance and injury no. 2 caused by sharp penetrating substance.” 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2004, to which the accused persons have pleaded that false case has been instituted against them and there is no legal material against them. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant Satendra Singh has preferred the present criminal appeal, as co-convict Harendra Singh, after serving out the sentence, came out of the jail custody and died subsequently. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that neither the First Information Report nor any Material has been exhibited in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that only on the basis of the statement of the informant and the victim, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that non-examination of investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant could not cross-examine the investigating officer, so far the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and the injury caused upon the victim is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even though the written report of informant has not been exhibited but from perusal of the same, it appears that informant Ramdhani Sharma has claimed that his wife has also sustained injury due to assault, made by these two accused persons, but the wife of the informant Ilaichi Devi (P.W. 6) has never claimed that she was also assaulted by the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the victim has sustained two injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and sharp penetrating weapon, as appears from Exhibit-1, the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court without proving the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that all the witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve their case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that victim Sunaina Devi (P.W. 5) cannot sustain such injuries as self-inflicted one, as the injuries have been found on head and cheek of the victim. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that Dr. Pradip Kr. Singh (P.W. 7) has proved the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and from perusal of the injury report, one of the injury which has been caused upon the head of victim, by sharp cutting substance and another injury, which has been caused on the cheek of the victim by sharp penetrating substances, as such the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that appellant has not been prejudiced because of non-examination of investigating officer as nothing has been stated by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC to disbelieve the prosecution case. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, one prosecution exhibit, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinized the materials brought on record, it is true that informant has alleged about assault upon his wife, which has not been supported by P.W. 6 Ilaichi Devi, wife of the informant, during her examination in the court and no such injury report has been brought on record but from perusal of the evidence of informant Ramdhani Sharma (P.W. 1), Ganesh Sharma (P.W. 2), Sunaina Devi (P.W. 5) and Dr. Pradeep Kr. Pradeep Kr. Singh (P.W. 7), it is apparent that appellant Satyendra Singh has assaulted Sunaina by means of gupti, causing sharp penetrating wound on her cheek, as such the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code by acquitting the appellant under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court has also perused the evidence of Bharat Singh (P.W. 4) who has claimed in his examination-in-chief that he has not seen the occurrence. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been rightly passed by the learned trial court, on the basis of the materials available on record. 13. At this point, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that at the time of occurrence i.e. in the year, 1993, the appellant may be a minor boy, as at the time of the judgment in the year, 2004, the appellant was aged about 25 years and he has faced the rigors of trial for approximately 25 years and has served out period of approximately six months in custody, as such, instead of further sending him to jail, it would be appropriate that the sentence may be modified by putting some fine or victim compensation in favour of injured. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection. 14. Considering such submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants has faced the rigors of trial for approximately 25 years and has already served about six months in custody, as such, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the appellant is modified as period already undergone, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-as fine, which the appellant will deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the sentence awarded by the learned trial court will revive. 15. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, Fast Track Court No. VII, in Sessions Trial No. 492 of 1995, arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No. 91 of 1993, corresponding to G. R. No. 2112 of 1993, is hereby upheld and affirmed and order of sentence, dated 31.03.2004, is modified as period already undergone, as discussed above. 16. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled, but no action may be taken against the appellant for the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to comply the order of this court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take all methods for procuring the attendance of the appellant to serve out rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed with modification. 18. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.