JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2-6-1989, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, XI, Patna in S.T. No. 586/79 of 1984/1986, whereby appellants Mahendra Singh and Nagendra Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 23-10-1980. It has been alleged that while the informant was in his field the appellants came variously armed. Appellants Mahendra Singh and Nagendra Singh assaulted the informant with Bhala. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal First Information Report was drawn and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court held that no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and accordingly acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. as indicated above.
3. No body appeared for the appellants and as such Mrs. Shweta Verma was appointed to do the case as amicus curiae.
4. The defence of the appellants was that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are innocent and the case has been lodged only to put pressure with a view to forcibly grab and lands.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants Mrs. Shweta Verma, however, stated that conviction and sentence of the appellants is bad in law as well as on facts. She also stated that the sentence awarded to the appellants is severe, Moreover, occurrence took place about 20 years ago.
6. The informant, P.W. 2 no doubt has supported the prosecution case. However, he stated that his son Rajendra was also assaulted but no injury report was brought on the record. His son was also examined but his evidence was not found cogent. The Doctor who examined the informant found injuries on the thigh which were simple in nature. In was alleged that bhala blow was given but the Investigating Officer did not find blood at the place of occurrence. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1980 i. e. about 20 years ago. In such a situation, sending the appellants in jail after such a long time would not be in the interest of justice nor would serve any useful purpose. It has” been stated by the learned Counsel for the parties that the appellants have remained in jail for some period.
7. In that view of the matter, their conviction is maintained. However, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification as indicated above.