Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.2.2000, passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1994, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16.12.1993, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in G.R. No. 1291 of 1986/T.R. No. 92 of 1993, has been dismissed with certain modifications. It may be stated that the Trial Court below had found the petitioner Chhaku Ram guilty for the offence under Sections 324, 148, 427, 452 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the other petitioners were found guilty for the offences under Sections 342, 452, 427, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and they were convicted for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner Chhaku Ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under Sections 324, 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 342 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the other petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences under Sections 323, 147 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 342 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the Appellate Court below, however, modified the Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, and maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Chhaku Ram only for the offence under Section 324, and of all the other petitioners only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and their conviction and sentence for the other offences were set aside by the Appellate Court below.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, it is alleged that due to previous enmity, the petitioners forming an unlawful assembly and variously armed, entered the house of the informant Nageshwar Ram on 21.9.1986 and they assaulted the informant. The petitioner Chhaku Ram tried to assault the informant by sword, which the informant saved, but it hit the niece of the informant, causing injury on her. There is also allegation of assault on the informant and his father by hard and blunt substance, and thereafter the informant tried to flee away in order to save himself, whereupon, he was chased by the petitioners and they came on the road and there also the petitioners assaulted the informant by hard and blunt substance. The FIR to the aforementioned effect was lodged on the basis of the written application given by the informant, on the basis of which, police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the petitioners, and they were ultimately put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all, out of which, P.W. 1 Birendra Yadav, P.W. 2 Bunda Rana, P.W. 3 Jageshwar Mandal and P.W. 4 Raju Mahto, are the witnesses to the occurrence that had taken place on the road, in which, the informant was assaulted by the petitioners. P.W. 8 Nageshwar Ram is the informant himself, who has supported the allegation of assault on himself as well as on his niece and his father, and he has also proved the written information given to the police, which was marked as Ext -1. P.W. 6 Kanti Kumari is the niece of the informant, who has also supported the occurrence and has stated that Chhaku Ram assaulted the informant by sword, which the informant saved, and it hit her, causing bleeding injuries on her. P.W. 9 Dr. Radheyshyam Prasad had examined all the injured persons and he has proved the injury reports, which were marked as Ext -2 Series. The evidence of this witness shows that he had found lacerated wound on Kanti Kumari, the niece of the informant, and he has stated that the said injury could be caused by, blunt portion of the knife. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer, who has proved me formal FIR as Exhibit -3. He has stated about the investigations made by him and has proved the requisitions for the injury reports of the injureds, as Ext -4 Series. P.W. 7 Dewanti Devi, who is the wife of the informant, has only been tendered by the prosecution. The injured father of the informant was not examined and explanation was given that he was too old to come in the Court for giving his evidence. The prosecution has also proved the certified copy of a Judgment of conviction and Order sentence passed against the petitioners Chhaku Ram, Sheo Narayan Ram, Surendra Ram and Sudhir Ram in another case, which was marked as Ext -5.
(3.) THE defense did not adduce any evidence in the case.;