The sufficiency of evidence and the reasonableness of the trial process influenced the court's decision in finding the appellant guilty and reducing his sentence.

Anand Prasad Sinha, J.–The sole appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 11.1.1974 at about 8.30 A.M. Jagarnath Prasad Kesari (P. W. 2), who is the informant and injured was going to the railway station on a rickshaw along with his associate Gopal Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4). Suddenly the appellant came with a dagger and inflicted a dagger blow on the neck. Since the rickshaw was in motion, the appellant could not succeed in giving such blow which may have caused death.

3. Learned counsel appearing on, behalf of the appellant has stated that there is no independent witness in this case and the Doctor has not been examined.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, absence of independent witness cannot be said to be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. The evidence of the injured is sufficient to fasten the guilt upon the appellant. Non-examination of the Doctor is of no gain to the defence. It is because if the statement that the appellant had inflicted dagger injury in the neck is accepted without going into the nature of injury, that is enough to find the appellant guilty for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. On perusal of the entire evidence, absolutely no occasion for interference on the question of conviction has been made out. However, I am inclined to consider on the question of sentence. It is because the occurrence took place in the year 1974, about 12 years back. The session trial itself consumed 8 years because that had been concluded on 22.10.1932. This period consumed by the Session trial is, in my opinion, exceedingly un-reasonable and the appellant must have been sufficiently punished in the process of trial itself. Moreover, the appellant had to undergo all the rigors of criminal prosecution for about 12 years, as the appeal is going to be disposed of today. The appellant has definitely lived in jail for three years which is calculated from the date of the JUDGMENT : of the session trial and till up-to-date as he has not been granted bail by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even a period of three years imprisonment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the ORDER :of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby altered and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

6. With the above modification in sentence, this appear is dismissed. Let the appellant be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.