Kanchan Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THE legality, validity and propriety of the judgement dated 26.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly, in Criminal Appeal no. 40 of 1991 affirming the order of conviction and modifying the sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Chandernagar in C.R. Case no. 878 of 1979 under Sections 447/323/324/34 I.P.C. has been challenged in this revision application by Mrityunjay Prodhan, Biswanath Prodhan, Dhananjay Prodhan and Kashinath Prodhan (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners)
(2.) THE factual matrix, leading to this revisional application is stated below, in brief : Umapada Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party no. 2) lodged one petition of complaint against the present petitioners on 24.12.1979 alleging therein that on 5.12.1979, while he was sowing wheat the petitioners being armed entered into his land, in order to dispossess them therefrom. On protest, the petitioners assaulted the opposite party no. 2, one Sukumar Majhi and kalipada Majhi causing severe bleeding injuries on their persons. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by learned Trial Court under Sections 447/324/325/34 I.P.C. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found them guilty of offences under Section 447/323/324/34 of I.P.C. and convicted them to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for committing an offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., to suffer S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- for committing the offence under Section 323 IPC and also to suffer S.I. for two months for committing offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to be ran concurrently and each of the convict would pay Rs. 500/- to the petitioners. The petitioners not being satisfied with that judgement of the learned Trial Court and sentence passed by it, preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal no. 40 of 1991. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 26.7.1995 in respect of judgement of conviction but reduced the sentence of S.I. for two years so awarded by the learned Trial Court to one year only keeping other sentences unchanged.
(3.) THIS application for revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court on the grounds a) that the learned Judge erred in law in convicting the petitioner under Section 447 of I.P.C. when there was a dispute over the possession of the land in question ; b) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the fact that according to the evidence of the Doctor, injury detected on the persons of the injured were not caused by any sharp cutting instrument and, as such, the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. was not committed ; c) that the learned Court erred in believing the testimonies of interested witnesses sacrosanct without getting corroboration from evidence of any independent witness; and d) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the factual background of the entire case and evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court in its proper perspective; The petitioners prayed for setting aside of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court. The point to be decided in this revision application is whether the order which has been impugned herein is sustainable?;