The court upheld the conviction based on consistent and reliable evidence, despite the non-examination of the doctor and investigating officer. The plea for leniency due to the occurrence being in 1985 was considered, resulting in a modification of the sentence to the period already undergone.

Gopal Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years.

3. The occurrence took place with regard to demand of mango by the appellant from the informant and there was abuse and injury and the appellant assaulted by Hasua causing injury on the middle of palm and fingers as well as injury on the shoulder of the informant which are skin deep.

4. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet submitted. Cognizance taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During trial three witnesses were examined and they have supported the prosecution case, though, injuries have formally been proved and doctor and I.O. has not been examined. But trial court taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 found that their evidence is quite consistent about place, manner and time of occurrence and found there is no prior enmity with the informant and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 324 I.P.C and acquitted from the charge under Section 307 I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant however contends and assail the order of conviction on the ground that doctor and I.O. has not been examined in this case and further contends that occurrence is of the year 1985, hence a lenient view may be taken.

6. However, having regard to the submissions, I perused the record and evidence of witnesses. P.W. 1 and 2 have supported the prosecution case and there is allegation of assault by Hasua causing injury on the hand and injuries have been formally been proved, but doctor has not been examined. However, non-examination of the doctor and I.O. has not prejudice from the prosecution case when the evidence has been found to be consistent and reliable. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the lower court.

7. However, having regard to the fact that occurrence is of the year 1985 and the appellant has suffer a lot due to protracted litigation and appellant has remained in jail from 24. 06. 1985 to 05. 07. 1985.

8. Hence in the interest of justice by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone and hence with this modification this appeal is dismissed.