- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.3.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2005, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment dated 14.9.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in G.R. No.243 of 2003 / T.R. No.64 of 2005, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with modification in sentence. It may be stated that the Trial Court below had found the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 323/ 324/ 34 of the IPC and had convicted them for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the Trial Court had sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed against the said Judgment was dismissed by the Appellate Court below, setting aside the sentence passed by the Trial Court and giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, directing them to enter into the probation bonds of Rs. 2,000.00 each with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and being of good behaviour for the period of two years. Petitioners were also directed to pay Rs. 1,000.00 each to the informant by way of compensation. With this modification in sentence, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It appears from the record that on the basis of fradbeyan given by the informant Ramesh Chandra Sahani, alleging that the accused persons, variously armed came to his house and had assaulted and injured him, Pakuria P.S. Case No. 23 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 243 of 2003 was instituted for the offences under Sections 448/323/325/307/504/34 of the IPC and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the petitioners were ultimately put to trial for the offences under Section 323 and 324 of the IPC. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the informant and the doctor. The I.O. has not been examined in this case and the evidence of one witness, i.e., PW­4 was not complete, and as such, her evidence was not taken into consideration by the Court below. The impugned Judgments show that the Courts below have taken into consideration the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and in view of the fact that the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, petitioners were sentenced as aforesaid. The appeal filed against the said Judgment was dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above.;