N. Dhinakar, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioners who were the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 92/2004, which was filed before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. Palamau, were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 323 and 325, IPC who. after trial, found them guilty and sentenced them to undergo RI under Section 323, IPC for six months and two years under Section 325, IPC with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that at 6,00 a.m. on 7.12.1995, they caused injuries on PWs 1, 2 and 5 by assaulting them, on account of which PWs 1 and 5 suffered simple injuries and PW 2 suffered grievous injuries. A complaint was given at the Chainpur police station by PW 5. The witnesses who suffered, were treated by PW 3, who issued wound certificates being Ext. 1,1/1 and 1/2 respectively for the injuries found on PWs 1, 2 and 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 'petitioners submits that though, according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 7.12.1995, the complaint was registered only on 19.1.1996, i.e. after more than one month. It is his further submission that PW 2, who, according to the prosecution, suffered injuries, did not support the prosecution as he could not identify any of the assailants as he was attacked from behind and the other two persons. He drew the attention of the Court to the findings of the trial Magistrate, wherein the trial Magistrate observed that PW 2 ought to have been treated hostile as he stated in his evidence that he could not identify any of the assailants.
(3.) I have heard Mr. S.N. Rajagarhia, APP, appearing for the State. Though there can be no doubt that PWs 1, 2 and 5 suffered injuries, there is doubt as to the identity of the assailants. In view of the evidence of PW 2, as noted earlier, the trial Magistrate found that PW 2 gave evidence to the effect that he could not identify any of the assailants and as such, the prosecution ought to have treated him hostile. In the background of the above observations, the Court below ought not to have held that the petitioners were the assailants. It is also to be remembered at this stage that though, according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 7.12.1995, the complaint was registered on 19.1.1996, i.e. after more than one month and it cannot be ruled out that between 7.12.1995 and 19.1.1996, the witnesses could have put their heads together to implicate the petitioners in the crime. I find it unsafe to accept the prosecution version, in view of the above factors.;