JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 362 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 324, 379 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for 1 month for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that while the informant was going to Laxmania More on 25.04.1995 at about 6:30 in the morning and when he arrived near the old bus stand he found the appellant standing on the road along with four of his associates. It has been alleged that all the said persons had surrounded the informant and had started abusing him. As the informant tried to proceed further he was assaulted with a knife in his back as a result of which he fell down. Further allegation has been levelled that the accused persons had taken away the titan wrist watch, a golden chain and Rs. 90/-in cash from the informant. The informant was taken to Bhagania Nursing Home by some persons for his treatment where his fardbeyan was recorded. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Jharia P.S. Case No. 159/1995 was instituted. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was explained to the appellant who had denied the charges levelled against him. 5. In course of trial five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 (Jai Mangal Singh) is the informant who has supported the allegations levelled in the fardbeyan and had stated that while he was going towards Laxamania More he was surrounded by the appellant and other miscreants who had abused him and ultimately had assaulted him on his back with a knife. He has further stated that the titan wrist watch, Rs. He has further stated that the titan wrist watch, Rs. 90/-in cash and a golden chain were stolen from him. This witness has disclosed that after he had fallen down in an injured condition he was taken to Bhagania Nursing Home where he was treated. In cross-examination this witness had stated that the reason for the assault was an altercation which had taken place earlier between him and the appellant and the appellant had at that point of time threatened him with dire consequences. P.W.2 (Prakash Verma) did not support the prosecution case and thus was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 (Shiv Shanker Singh) is the brother of the informant who has stated that on receiving information that his brother was lying in an injured condition he had rushed to the place of occurrence and had taken him to Bhagania Nursing Home for treatment. He has further stated that his brother had disclosed about the assault committed upon him with a knife by the appellant and the articles including cash of Rs. 90/-, Titan wrist watch and a golden chain having been stolen from him. P.W.4 (Dr. Surendra Kumar Bhadania) had examined the informant on 25.04.1995 at 7:30 A.M. and had found the cut injury on his back near the medial border of the right scapula, size ½” x ¼” deep to muscles. He had opined that the nature of injury was simple and the weapon used was sharp cutting. The injury report was proved by this witness which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has further stated that the injured was not admitted to the hospital and after he was given treatment he was allowed to be discharged. P.W.5 (Rohit Kumar Choudhary) is a formal witness. 6. It has been stated by Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined and his non-examination has caused prejudice to the defence since the place of occurrence could not be proved. Learned counsel further submits that the entire conviction is based on the evidence of P.W.1 and so far as the other witnesses are concerned either they are formal witnesses or are hearsay witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the entire conviction is based on the evidence of P.W.1 and so far as the other witnesses are concerned either they are formal witnesses or are hearsay witnesses. It has further been submitted that the knife which was purportedly used in the commission of the offence was never recovered. Learned counsel adds that as per the evidence of P.W.4 the informant was given treatment and thereafter he was permitted to leave the hospital which would indicate that the informant had suffered minor injuries. Learned counsel thus sums up his argument by stating that in absence of any independent witnesses having been examined which is surprising in view of the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in a busy thorough fare and non-examination of the Investigating Officer apart from the other circumstances the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant be set aside. 7. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the appellant and has relied on the evidence of P.W.1 while stating that even a solitary witness can be the basis for conviction if the evidence of such witness is trustworthy. It has further been stated that there has been no addition to the fardbeyan recorded by the informant as he has corroborated and stuck to whatever had been stated by him in the fardbeyan. Learned Spl. P.P. further submits that it was the appellant who had struck the knife blow on the back of the informant which resulted in medial deep injury having been suffered by the informant. 8. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the Lower Court Records, it appears that P.W.1 is the victim as well as the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.1 has not shifted from his stance as given in his fardbeyan and has specifically stated that near Laxmania More he was surrounded by the appellant and some of his associates had started abusing him. He has further stated that when he was proceeding further it was the appellant who had struck on his back with a knife which resulted in some injuries having been suffered by him. He has further stated that when he was proceeding further it was the appellant who had struck on his back with a knife which resulted in some injuries having been suffered by him. P.W.3 the brother of the informant although is not an eye-witness but it was the informant who had disclosed about the assault to him and on coming to know about the incident it was this witness who had taken the informant to the hospital for treatment. No doubt it is true that after treatment the informant was immediately discharged since the nature of injury was found to be simple. It therefore appears that the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the assault committed by the appellant on his back with a knife has been corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor P.W.4 as well as the brother of the informant P.W.3. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused prejudiced to the defence since the place of occurrence has been well established by P.W.1 himself. 9. On consideration of the circumstances, denoted above, I do not feel inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 324, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. However, since it appears that the First Information Report was instituted about 25 years back and on consideration of the nature of offence levelled against the appellant it would suffice that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be suitably modified. 11. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the appellant vide judgment dated 22.11.2003 is modified to the extent that the appellant shall deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/-before the learned trial court towards his sentence. While upholding the judgment dated 22.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 362/1998 the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified to the extent as mentioned hereinabove. 12. This appeal stands disposed off.