JUDGMENT : Anant Bijay Singh, J. Both the appellants have faced the trial in Session Trial No. 84 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge, Godda, who by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04th December, 2003 held them guilty and awarded them sentence to undergo R.I. for 5 years under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for three months under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code to each of them. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. It appears that this appeal was filed on 05.01.2004 and it has been admitted for hearing on 19.03.2004 and the LCR was called for. 3. The prosecution, in short, is that one Chhhaku Pasi gave his Fardbeyan before the Office-in-Charge, Poraihaat P.S. on 07.05.2000 alleging therein that while he was going to attend the marriage party of son of one Doman Pasi alongwith co-villagers, namely, Babulal Pasi, Kailu Pasi, Lalu Pasi and Rajesh Pasi, one Sridhar Pasi-appellants No. 1 also followed him alongwith other person, namely, Anandi Pasi-appellant No. 2 and while he was returning from the marriage party, Sridhar Pasi-appellant No. 1 came to the informant armed with Hasuai and assaulted him by means of Hasua on the left side of his neck causing injury and Anandi Pasi-appellant No. 2 came and assaulted him by means of Lathi. The motive of occurrence is land dispute between the informant and the appellants and in the year 1995, the father of Sridhar Pasi was murdered in the which Suresh Pasi, Naresh Pasi and the informant were made accused and the informant was awarded R.I. for life and presently he is on bail and another accused person namely, Naresh Pasi is absconder. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, the present case was instituted and during the course of trial, the prosecution has examines altogether 10 witnesses. Out of which P.W.6, who is informant of this case has supported the prosecution case, P.W.1 Babulal Pasi is a hearsay witness, because he had stated in his evidence that the informant had disclosed before him that Sridhar Pasi had assaulted him, so this witness had been declared hostile. The evidence of P.W.2 is similar to P.W.1. P.W.3-Kailu Pasi is named in FIR as the witness of the occurrence and he has supported the prosecution case. P.W.4-Suresh Pasi has also supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 and P.W.8 have been tendered. The evidence of P.W.2 is similar to P.W.1. P.W.3-Kailu Pasi is named in FIR as the witness of the occurrence and he has supported the prosecution case. P.W.4-Suresh Pasi has also supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 and P.W.8 have been tendered. P.W.7 is Doman Pasi in whose house, the informant other had gone to attend the marriage party and he has supported the prosecution case to that extent that the informant Chhaku Pasi was brought to his houses in injured condition. 5. P.W.10 - Gupteshwar Singh is I.O. of this case, who had received the charge of investigation and also submitted charge-sheet. 6. P.W.9 is the doctor, who examined the informant-Chhaku Pasi at Poraihaat Primary Health Centre and found the following injuries on the person of the informant-Chhaku Pasi : (i) Sharp cut (transverse in type) on back side of neck 2"x ½"x ¼"- (ii) Sharp cut-on lateral side of right arm- 4"x 3" x ½" (iii) Sharp cum-over left shoulder- 5" x 2" x 1" (iv) Swelling on right side of cheek- 5" x 2" x 1" by hard and blunt substance. (v) Scratch on lateral side of right fore-arm just above right elbow joint- 2" x ¼". 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that admittedly there is land dispute between the parties and save and except, the informant, who has been injured, no body has supported the prosecution case. 8. Ext.1 is injury report causing to which the informant had received sharp cut injury on the back side of neck although the same is simple in nature and a sharp cut on lateral side of 4"x 3" x ½" and no any injury found caused by lathi. 9. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that P.W.6-informant and P.W.3, namely, Kailu Pasi is named in FIR as the witness of the occurrence and they have supported the prosecution case. 11. After hearing the parties and also going through the records of the case, it appears that there is specific overt act against appellant No. 2 regarding assaulting the informant by means of lathi, but no lathi injury was found by the doctor on the body of the informant. 12. 11. After hearing the parties and also going through the records of the case, it appears that there is specific overt act against appellant No. 2 regarding assaulting the informant by means of lathi, but no lathi injury was found by the doctor on the body of the informant. 12. Under the said circumstances, this appeal is allowed, so far appellant No. 2 is concerned and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 13. So far, appellant No. 1, namely, Anandi Pasi is concerned, I find that the trial court has rightly passed the order of conviction against appellants No. 1. It appears that he has already remained in jail custody for two years and he has been sufficiently punished. Hence, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellant No. 1 is sentenced for the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant No. 1 by the trial court is reduced from Five years to the period already undergone and his appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.