JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2006 passed by P.K. Srivastava, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. No. 418/99 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence u/s 324 of the IPC. 3. On the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Ajay Ram, Meral P.S. Case No.28/1999 has been registered on 16.03.1999. The story as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that at about 8 P.M. on 15.03.1999 while the informant''s grand-father, namely, Narayan Ram was selling ''Bael'' fruit, scuffle took place between the parties and appellant has assaulted the informant with knife causing injury on hand, thigh and cheek. F.I.R. has been registered against two persons namely, Narayan Ram and Ram Preet Ram (this appellant). 4. After completion of investigation, both the persons have been charged by the police under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 and 504 of the IPC. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of sessions and ultimately, charge has been framed under Sections 341, 324, 342, 447 and 307 of the IPC to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 5. On conclusion of the trial, Narayan Ram has been acquitted from all the charges and the present appellant has also been acquitted from all the charges save and except offence under Section 324 of the IPC for which he has been sentenced for two years S.I. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether four witnesses have been examined. P.W. -1, Ram Dhyan Pal is formal witness. P.W.-2, Dasrath Ram was named in the F.I.R. as witness but he has become hostile. P.W.-3, Muneswar Ram in his cross-examination has admitted that he has reached at the spot after the occurrence. P.W.-4, is the informant, who has supported the F.I.R. 7. He has sustained injury, which has been marked as Ext.3, but the same has not been proved by the Medical Officer. 8. P.W.-3, Muneswar Ram in his cross-examination has admitted that he has reached at the spot after the occurrence. P.W.-4, is the informant, who has supported the F.I.R. 7. He has sustained injury, which has been marked as Ext.3, but the same has not been proved by the Medical Officer. 8. Thus, argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that injury has not been proved and further there is dispute between the parties as they are member of an undivided hindu family and as such he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to family dispute. 9. Per contra, learned A.P.P. has supported the conviction and argument has been advanced that injured witness has supported the prosecution case and the testimony of the sole injured eye-witness get corroborated by P.W.3 which is sufficient to sustain the conviction. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. It transpires that neither Investigating Officer has been examined nor injury has been proved by the Medical Officer. It also transpires that there is family dispute between the parties. The incident has taken place in the year 1999, the trial has been concluded in the year 2006 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2019. The appellant has remained in custody since 01.06.1999 to 23.12.1999 i.e. more than six months. 12. Considering the entire materials available on record, the conviction is sustained but the sentenced is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. six months. 13. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2006 passed by P.K. Srivastava, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. No. 418/99 is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed with above modification. 14. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.