ORDER : 1. The appellant before this Court is challenging the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the High Court, which has upheld the order of the trial court convicting him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo seven years of simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as reflected in FIR No. 408 of 2009, which was lodged at about 09.15 AM, is that one Fazlu Rahman, the brother of the complainant, was attacked by 11 persons, who were named in the FIR, including the present appellant, on 30.11.2009. He was found to be in a pool of blood and had sustained several injuries on the head and fingers and was bleeding from the head and the nose. He was immediately taken to the hospital and the Injury Report (Exhibit P3) suggests that Fazlu Rahman, who was examined as PW9, sustained seven injuries. The police, after investigation, filed the chargesheet under Sections 148, 341, 323, 307 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to Sessions. Although 11 persons were named in the FIR, the chargesheet was filed only against 6 persons, out of whom, two were juvenile and their trial was separated. But ultimately, the trial court convicted the present appellant only and all the other accused were acquitted. 3. The conviction was challenged before the High Court, which has upheld the order of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 4. By this time, we have been informed that the appellant has already served the sentence, but is presently only challenging the conviction. We, however, see absolutely no reason as to how the conviction can be set aside, for the simple reason that as far as the present appellant is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Out of the many witnesses that the prosecution has examined before the trial court, one of the most important witness, was the injured himself, which is PW9, who has deposed categorically that he was attacked particularly at the hands of the appellant by a ‘bolt opener’ (a tool in the shape of a pipe), and as a result, he sustained severe injuries, which could have been fatal. Moreover, the FIR was also prompt, which was lodged barely less than one hour after the incident. Moreover, the FIR was also prompt, which was lodged barely less than one hour after the incident. Therefore, we do not think that it is a case where the appellant has been falsely implicated. Considering the totality of circumstances, we see absolutely no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, is/are disposed of.