JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.12.2006 passed in B.S. City P.S. Case No.196 of 1998 (G.R. No.626 of 1998) corresponding to S.T.No.308/04 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Bokaro by which appellants have been convicted under Sections 324 / 34/ 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years under Sections 324 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Simple Imprisonment for 1 year under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.4 are hearsay witnesses and P.W.2 is an interested witness. He further submits that the injuries were simple and not serious. He further submits that appellants have been implicated due to enimity. The Investigating Officer (IO) was not examined. He further submits that the benefit of doubt should be given to appellants due to lack of evidence and contradictions. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants, with a common intention and armed with deadly weapons, attacked the informant and his family members. She further submits that the injury report produced by PW 5 - Doctor clearly shows that the injury is grievous in nature. 4. I have gone through the records of the case. 5. The Prosecution story as per the written report is that on 17.05.1998, at around 8:00 PM, the informant was standing in front of his house when the accused and eight to ten others, armed with lathi, assaulted him. When his mother and brother Anil Singh tried to help, they were also assaulted with Lathi, sword and Tangi. The informant got a cut on his elbow, Anil was injured on his arm and neck, and their mother was hit on the head and was bleeding. Two other brothers, Raju and Sanjay, were also attacked when they arrived. Raju was hit on his head. The occurrence happened over an issue related to plying of vehicle in dairy farm. 6. After completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet being Chargesheet No.130 of 1998 dated 31.07.1998 for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Raju was hit on his head. The occurrence happened over an issue related to plying of vehicle in dairy farm. 6. After completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet being Chargesheet No.130 of 1998 dated 31.07.1998 for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The Trial Court had framed charges against the accused persons with four heads for offences under Sections 148 , 324, 341 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . As the accused persons pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution altogether examined five witnesses, who are as follows: – PW 1- Jai Ram Prasad @ Jairam Das PW 2- Lily Devi. PW 3- Sunil Kumar Sahu ( informant) PW 4- Kalu Munda PW 5- Dr. Maithli Thakur 8. The prosecution had also produced the following documents which were marked as exhibits:- Exhibit 1- Signature of PW 2 on written report Exhibit 1/1 – Written Report Exhibit 1/2 – Signature of PW 3 on Written Report Exhibit 2- Injury report of Sunil Kumar Sahu Exhibit 2/1- Injury report of Shakuntala Devi Exhibit 2/2- Injury report of Ayodhya Prasad Exhibit 2/3- Injury report of Rajeev Kumar Sah 9. On examining the evidence of the witnesses, I find that P.W.1 Jay Ram Das stated that about seven years ago, at 10:00 PM, when he returned home, he saw the informant and his mother injured. He stated that they had been attacked by a farsa. He came to know that accused Hira, Goldee, and others had attacked them. Another witness, PW 2 Lily Devi stated that on 17.05.1998 at 8:00 PM, there was an argument between her brother (PW-3), who is a driver at the Dairy Farm, and the accused Hira Singh. After that, all the accused attacked her brother with a sword, injuring his left elbow. Her mother was hit on the head with a Garasha. Her younger brother was attacked by Raju Singh with a Kulhari, causing injuries to his right hand and the back of his neck. Another younger brother, Raju, had a wound on his head. She confirmed the written report and her signature was marked as Exhibit-1. Informant Sunil Kumar Sahu was examined as PW 3. Her younger brother was attacked by Raju Singh with a Kulhari, causing injuries to his right hand and the back of his neck. Another younger brother, Raju, had a wound on his head. She confirmed the written report and her signature was marked as Exhibit-1. Informant Sunil Kumar Sahu was examined as PW 3. He stated that on 17.05.1998, around 8 to 8:30 PM, he was standing on the road in front of his house, about to leave for work. At that time, the accused arrived with weapons, including a sword and a tangi, and told him not to go to work. Then they started assaulting him, and Hira Singh hit him on the left elbow with a sword. When he shouted, his brother Anil came to help but was also assaulted by Hira Singh with a sword. As they ran toward their house, the accused followed and continued the assault. His younger brother Raju was hit on the head with a tangi by Babu Singh, and his mother was attacked by Babe Singh with a sword. He further stated that he went to the police station and filed a written report, which was marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/2. They were treated at a government hospital. PW 4- Kalu Munda in his examination stated that after the assault he reached the place of occurrence. He stated that he saw that the informant was injured on his left hand. He also said that the informant’s mother was injured on the head. In his cross examination, at paragraph 5, he said that the assault took place at the house. At paragraph 7 of his cross examination, he stated that he saw the appellant Hira Singh assaulting the Informant (P.W.3). The doctor, namely, Dr. Maithli Thakur, who had examined the victim injured, was PW 5. The doctor had treated the injured and gave injury report saying that on 18.05.1998, at 10:30 AM, he had examined Sunil Kumar Sahu and found a cut wound on the back of his left arm size 2.5. CM. x 1.00C.M.x1/2 C.M. The injury was caused by sharp object and nature of injury was simple. On the same day at 10:40 A.M. he examined Sakuntala Devi and found Lacerated wound on right side of the head 3.00 CM X 1 C.M. X 1 C.M. caused by blunt object and nature of the injury was simple. CM. x 1.00C.M.x1/2 C.M. The injury was caused by sharp object and nature of injury was simple. On the same day at 10:40 A.M. he examined Sakuntala Devi and found Lacerated wound on right side of the head 3.00 CM X 1 C.M. X 1 C.M. caused by blunt object and nature of the injury was simple. He further deposed that on the same day he examined Anil Kumar Sahu and found a cut wound on right arm 2.00 C.M. X 1.00 C.M. X 1/2 C.M. and small wound over left clavicle 1/2 C.M. x 1/2 C.M. The injuries were caused by sharp object and were simple in nature. He also examined Raju Kumar on the same day and found a lacerated wound on head 1.5 C.M. x 1/2 C.M. X 1/2 C.M. caused by hard blunt object and nature of the injury was simple. According to the doctor, the time elapsed was within 12 to 24 hours. He has proved the injury reports marked as exhibit:- 2 to 2/3. 10. From the oral evidence led by the prosecution, I find that P.W.1 is not an eye witness. He had come to know about the occurrence when he returned home and he had seen the injured in an injured condition. Similarly, P.W.4 is also not eye witness, but he had seen the informant being injured on his left hand and the mother of the informant with injuries on her head. I came to the finding that he is not an eye witness as he, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that he reached the place of occurrence after the assault, but in his cross examination, he stated that he had seen Hira Singh assaulting. Considering this discrepancy, I come to the conclusion that he is not a reliable witness. 11. Thus, there are two eye witnesses, namely, Lily Devi and Sunil Kumar Sahu. P.W.2, as noted above, stated that the appellants have attacked his brother with a sword and injured left elbow and mother was attacked with Garasha and Raju was attacked with Kulhari. Informant also stated that Hira Singh assaulted him on the left elbow with a sword. When his brother came to help, he was also assaulted by Hira Singh. Accused also followed them. Babu Singh also assaulted the younger brother on his head. Informant also stated that Hira Singh assaulted him on the left elbow with a sword. When his brother came to help, he was also assaulted by Hira Singh. Accused also followed them. Babu Singh also assaulted the younger brother on his head. Thus, the oral evidence of P.W.2 is consistent that these appellants have assaulted the victim and the informant. Though P.W.1 and P.W.4 had not seen the assault, but they had seen the injuries on the victim. The injuries as per the version of P.W.4, upon the informant was, on his left hand, which is corroborated from the statement of the other witnesses and also the medical evidence. The doctor has also found injuries upon the victims, i.e., the informant Sunil Kumar Sahu on the left arm caused by sharp cutting weapon, though simple, Shakuntala Devi on head and Anil Kumar on right arm and left clavicle. These injuries are corroborated by the eye witnesses, who had seen the occurrence and also other witnesses, who had seen the injured immediately after the occurrence. Thus, medical evidence is corroborated with the ocular evidence and there is no discrepancy. Informant himself is an injured witness and his injury is corroborated by the medical evidence and also by other witnesses. There is nothing to disbelieve this witness including the informant. Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. The contention of the appellants that the case is bound to fail due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record to show that how the defence has been prejudiced by non- examination of the Investigating Officer. Place of occurrence has not seriously been challenged by the appellants and especially in view of overwhelming ocular and medical evidence, this contention of the appellants does not find legs to stand. 13. Thus, while independently assessing the evidence and other documents on record, I find that the Trial Court has correctly convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 148 , 324/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 14. 13. Thus, while independently assessing the evidence and other documents on record, I find that the Trial Court has correctly convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 148 , 324/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 14. So far as sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for offences under Sections 324 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and simple imprisonment for one year for offences under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 15. Learned counsel for the appellants had argued that since the occurrence is of 1998 and the appellants are facing rigors of trial and this appeal since long, the sentence should be modified to the period which they had already undergone. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Banwari Lal reported in (2022) 12 SCC 166 at paragraph 15 thereof has held that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. 16. In this case, I find that appellant Hira Singh and appellant Babu Singh @ Awtar Singh have remained in custody for two months and odd, whereas appellant Babe Singh and Goldee Singh have remained in custody for 10 (ten) days. Considering this meager period of custody and considering the gravity of the offence, the sentence cannot be modified to the period which they had already undergone. Considering the gravity of the offence, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed only with modification of sentence. Appellants are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as also simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 324 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a month to serve the remaining part of their sentence. The period which they have already undergone will be set of. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned.