1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2006 passed by Sri Binay Kumar Sahay, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.35 of 1996/Sessions Trial No.129 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, with a fine of Rs.1000/-and rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 3. The FIR has been lodged on the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.4-Dhaneshwar Saha) on 11.11.1992, wherein it has been alleged that the appellant along with three other co-accused persons had assaulted the informant with 'hasua' causing grievous injury to him. Reason has been assigned that the appellant had misunderstanding that the informant had illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant. On the said basis, First Information Report being F.I.R. No.100 of 1992 has been registered under Section 341/324/307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After conclusion of the investigation, the appellant and three unknown persons had been charge-sheeted under Sections 341, 324, 325, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which cognizance has been taken. The case has been committed to the court of sessions and the charge has been framed only under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six (06) witnesses have been examined. P.W.1-Ranjeet Saha and P.W.2-Bankum Saha @ Banku are cousin of the informant/injured and both have been declared hostile. P.W.3-Ramesh Saha is the hearsay witness. P.W.4-Dhaneshwar Saha is the informant and the injured witness. P.W.5-Pradeep Kumar Saha is the hearsay witness and he has deposed to the extent that immediately after incident, he went to the place of occurrence, where the informant/injured informed him that he had been assaulted by this appellant along with three other co-accused. P.W.6-Dr. Md. P.W.3-Ramesh Saha is the hearsay witness. P.W.4-Dhaneshwar Saha is the informant and the injured witness. P.W.5-Pradeep Kumar Saha is the hearsay witness and he has deposed to the extent that immediately after incident, he went to the place of occurrence, where the informant/injured informed him that he had been assaulted by this appellant along with three other co-accused. P.W.6-Dr. Md. Wasi Akhtar is the medical officer who has proved the injury. As per the doctor, some injuries are simple and some are grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. 6. On conclusion of the evidence, the question has been put upon the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to which he has denied. From perusal of the question, it appears that the court below has taken the prosecution story only to the extent that on the alleged date 11.11.1992, at about 5.30 p.m., the informant has been assaulted by this appellant along with three other co-accused persons in which the informant has sustained injury by a sharp-cutting weapon. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a simple incident of loot in which other persons were involved and taking benefit of the incident, this appellant has been implicated as there is an enmity between the parties, which has been admitted by the informant in his deposition as well as in the FIR. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is enough material on records justifying the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured witness has supported the incident which gets corroboration by the medical evidence proved by the doctor (P.W.6) and further corroborated by P.W.5. 9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the prosecution has made out the story that the informant has been assaulted by the applicant along with three other co-accused. Neither the identity of three other persons has been disclosed nor the appellant has been charged taking addition of the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured eye witness i.e. P.W.4, has identified this appellant and alleged that he has caused injury by a sharp-cutting weapon like 'hasua'. His intention was to hit towards the vital part but the victim has taken the blow of 'hasua' on his hand saving himself. The injured eye witness i.e. P.W.4, has identified this appellant and alleged that he has caused injury by a sharp-cutting weapon like 'hasua'. His intention was to hit towards the vital part but the victim has taken the blow of 'hasua' on his hand saving himself. He could be saved on 'hulla' as other persons had arrived at the place of occurrence. The above statement of the victim (the informant) get corroborated by P.W.5 and the medical evidence. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the guilt as recorded by the Court below under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2006 passed by Sri Binay Kumar Sahay, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.35 of 1996/Sessions Trial No.129 of 2002. So far as, the sentencing part is concerned, the incident is of the year 1992 and trial has been disposed in the year 10.10.2006. The appeal is being heard in year 2021. 11. Further, it appears that the appellant has remained in custody for about post-conviction of two (2) years and six (6) months and pre-conviction about four (4) months. Thus, the appellant has remained in custody around two (2) years ten (10) months. 12. In view of above factual aspect and the nature of dispute between the parties, this Court deems fit that the sentencing part should be modified and accordingly, it is modified to the extent that the sentencing is reduced to the period already under gone and the amount of fine Rs.1000/-is enhanced to Rs.3000/-. With above modification, the present appeal being Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.110 of 2006 stands disposed off. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within three months from today, failing which the trial court should take steps for realization of the same. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed.