Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2002 passed by F.T.C. No. 3, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Sessions Trial No. 128/99/94/2002 convicting appellant, Shivdhari Ram under Sections 324, 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for two years respectively, appellant, Manohar Ram under Sections 325, 323 IPC directing to undergo R.I. for two years, one year respectively, appellants Keshri Ram and Daya Ram under Section 323 IPC, directing to undergo R.I. for one year and further directing to run the sentences concurrently. Learned counsel for the appellants confined his argument relating to sentence inflicted against them and further submitted that they be released on due admonition in accordance with Probation of Offenders Act. To justify such submission, it has been submitted that from the judgment impugned as well as from the consistent evidence of the injured, more particularly, that of PWs -5 and 8, have admitted presence of counter case and in likewise manner, PW -1 had admitted presence of Shivdhari Ram in the hospital where he was also admitted, where injured were also admitted. It has also been submitted that PW -10, the doctor had also exhibited the injury report of respective appellants during course of his evidence as well as PW -9, the Investigating Officer had also supported presence of counter case coupled with submission of charge -sheet. The learned trial court had also taken cognizance of the aforesaid event.
(3.) IT has fairly been submitted that though in specific terms none of the injured as well as other prosecution witness were suggested challenging the genesis as well as manner of occurrence but presence of all those materials justify the contention raised on behalf of appellants that the genesis as well as manner of occurrence as advanced on behalf of prosecution suffers from diminution so much so, suggest suppression of actual genesis as well as manner of occurrence. Though, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial court had considered and held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case for the offence whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced while acquitting remaining, again evidence of the prosecution witnesses comes under doubtful, suspicious categories.;