Ishan Chandra Das, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of a conviction dated March 18, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -1, Krishnanagar in Sessions Case No. 71(12)/2006 wherein the learned trial court found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Ss. 325/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for one year and three years respectively and again to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 2,000 each for both the offences, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and one month respectively.
(2.) Brief facts of this case is that on the 15th day of June 2006 at about 5.30 p.m. at village Mahakhola, P.S. Chapra, Nadia the appellants and another demanded a sum of Rs. 1,500 as subscription from the husband of one Renuka Biswas, de fact complainant, but when her husband expressed his inability to give such subscription, the appellants began to hit him all on a sudden with fists, blows and with belt causing severe bleeding injuries. One of them (i.e. accused Golak Bairagi) hit the victim, Sudhin Biswas, with iron rod causing serious injuries. The local people like Nitish Sikdar, Fatik Sarkar and Gyanendra Nath Naskar of their village while rushed to the place of occurrence to save the victim, they were also beaten up by the appellants and another over the said incident. Stating the above noted allegations a written complaint was lodged before the officer in charge of Chapra police station with a request to take legal steps against the miscreants. Accordingly, Chapra P.S. Case No. 147 of 2006 dated June 16, 2006 was started; and on conclusion of investigation, the appellants herein were brought before the learned trial court to stand trial for committing the offence punishable under Ss. 325/34 IPC, 308/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. The learned trial court on examination of twelve witnesses altogether found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Ss. 325/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as noted earlier, though they were exonerated from the charge under Ss. 308/34 IPC.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction passed by the learned court below, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the following grounds: - - "1) The learned trial court failed to appreciate the various infirmities in the prosecution case and disposed of resulting conviction of the appellants on the basis of surmise and conjecture. 2) The said judgment passed by the learned trial court has been vitiated by reason of non -consideration of the materials, elicited in the cross -examination. 3) The involvement of the appellants herein not being established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in law. 4) Learned trial court found the appellants guilty of the offence as complained of on the strength of the evidence of "hearsay witnesses" without searching for any corroboration of the same. 5) The learned trial Judge failed to take into account the fact that the medical evidence did not support the version of the eyewitnesses. 6) The learned trial Judge has committed mistake in holding that the appellants assaulted the victim in furtherance of their common intention, though they were convicted accordingly. 7) The learned trial Judge caused miscourage of justice by discarding the defence version that the so -called victim was a cattle smuggler and used to run 'gambling boards' in the local market. 8) The learned court below did not consider the evidence of hostile witnesses, who, in a round about way, falsified the prosecution's case. 9) That the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court, not being based on sound reasoning, should be set aside resulting acquittal of the appellants, since the prosecution hopelessly failed to establish the allegations far to speak of beyond reasonable doubt.";