D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present Cr. Revision has been preferred by the petitioners herein against the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 64/94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of sentence passed by Shri N.K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. case No. 46/1990 corresponding to T.R. No. 513/04 dated 18.5.1994 was upheld. The petitioners were held guilty by the trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 452, IPC each and imprisonment for 3 months for their conviction under Section 323, IPC to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the informant while was sleeping in the night on 15.1.1990 he heard the noise of breaking his door and no sooner did he arrive at the door, as many as five named accused including the petitioners entered in the house, variously armed, to which the informant resisted. Disclosing the motive to the informant they declared that his wife was witch and that they would kill her. On the resistance there being made, it is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 Babu Ram Mrumu inflicted blows with his stick to the informant and sustaining Injury he escaped. When the wife and daughter of the informant appeared at the scene, all the five accused assaulted them and removed Rs. 4,000/ - as well as a silver chain and on the arrival of the villagers, on hearing alarm, all the accused escaped. On the statement of informant Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 6/90 was lodged and after investigation the police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 452, 323, 341 and 34, IPC against three accused persons. The other two accused Badan Murmu and Mushi Soren though were named in the FIR but not sent up for trial in the charge -sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 452, 323, 341 and 34, IPC. Although 6 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Parmanand Mandal proved FIR (Ext. 1) and paragraph 7 of the case diary (Ext. 2). PW 2 Budhni Tudu is the wife of the informant and eye - witness of the occurrence who deposed that she was assaulted by the accused persons. PW 3 Fulmani Kisku is the daughter of the informant as well as an eye - witness and was a victim of assault. PW 4 Pani Soren and PW 5 Lakhan Kisku are the sons -in -law having claimed to be the eye -witnesses of the occurrence and PW 6 Lilmuni Kisku is one of the daughters of the informant as well as wife of PW 4 Pani Soren and she has also claimed to be the eye -witness of the occurrence.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that charge framed against the petitioners was amended by the order dated 18.10.1994 by introducing additional charge under Section 380, IPC and thereafter the prosecution witnesses already examined were recalled and further cross -examined.;