- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged the Judgment dated 8.8.2001 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Cr. Appeal No.46 of 1995 whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment dated 17th July 1995 passed by Shri Himanshu Shekhar Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dumka, in G.R. Case No.16 of 1988 / T.R. No.282 of 1995, was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court below. It appears that the petitioners were made accused in G.R. Case No.16 of 1988 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 of the IPC with allegation that the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, had assaulted and injured the persons on the informant's side due to land dispute. It further appears that after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and the petitioners were put to trial in the Court below. The L.C.R. shows that the prosecution had examined five witnesses, including the injured persons, and all of them supported the case of assault against these petitioners and in view of the evidence brought on record, the Trial Court by Judgment dated 17 July 1995, found these petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the I.P.C. and convicted them for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioners were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, and they were directed to enter into the bonds of Rupees two thousand each with two sureties of the like amount each, to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year and to appear in the Court for receiving the sentence, if called for during the said period. Petitioners filed an appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1995 and the learned Appellate Court also affirmed the Judgment passed by the Trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, in as much as, the witnesses examined by the Court below are only interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and even the injured witnesses have been examined in the Court below. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 147, 323 of the IPC and they have rightly been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and accordingly, there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.;