Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) Both the above appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment. In Criminal appeal (S.J.) no. 58 of 2005, there is only one appellant namely Amar Singh @ Tuntun Singh while in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) no. 77 of 2005, there are two appellants namely Chandrama Pandey and Ganesh Singh. All the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code, Six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case, which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Munna Singh (P.W.6), is that on 07.07.1998 at about 9.00 P.M., he was coming back to his house at Karkand Sudamdih on his motorcycle from Putki Bazar and when reached near Karkend Tempo Stand, all the three accused persons/appellants namely Amar Singh @ Tuntun Singh, Chandrama Pandey and Ganesh Singh got his motorcycle stopped. Amar Singh put revolver on the earpit of the informant and demanded Rs. 1,000/- as Rangdari but when the informant protested, the accused Ganesh Singh assaulted him with Bhujali causing cut injury on three fingers of left hand. Another accused Chandrama Pandey assaulted him with fists on his abdomen and chest and also asked the informant to handover the money to Amar Singh. The three accused persons, thereafter, threatened him of dire consequence. This fardbeyan was recorded at about 9.00 P.M. on the same day at Putki Police Station under Sections 341, 323, 324, 387, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of Arms Act. After Investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the three appellants named above in all the above sections except Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal in accordance with law. The charges against the appellants were framed under Sections 341, 387, 307, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty.
(3.) The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges against the appellants examined seven witnesses, of them, P.W. 6 is the informant, P.W.-7 is the doctor, who had examined the informant, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W. 5, who were witnesses of the fact, were declared hostile on their denial to know anything about the alleged occurrence. P.W. 4 Ram Dutt Singh, is another witness of the fact. The injury report of the informant has been marked as Ext.-2.;