D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) APPELLANTS Meraj Ansari and Shakil Ansari on being tried, have been found and held guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution facts are that in the evening of 26.11.2000. informant. Ashif Hussain, was returning after easing himself at 7.30 p.m. when these two appellants assaulted him with sharp cutting weapon, bhujali and katari, resulting in serious injuries on his vital parts. The informant raised alarms on which, villagers started assembling and the appellants fled away. The reason behind this attack was that he has made complaint to the family members of the appellants regarding them. The informant was moved for his treatment at Sardar Hospital, Lohardaga where the police recorded his statement at 10.30 p.m. The police accordingly registered Lohardaga Police Station Case No. 139 of 2000 under Sections 341, 324, 307, 34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against both the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions where they were charged under Section 307/34 and 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code only and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.
(3.) THESE present appeals have been preferred on the grounds that the trial Court has committed mistake of fact by believing uncorroborated evidence of the informant. It is also submitted that the incident took place in the dark night and there was no occasion for their identification in absence of any means of light. It is further submitted that when the trial Court has not believed the part of the story, regarding theft of wristwatch, this part of the story also should have been discarded. It is also submitted that there was admitted enmity between the informant and the appellants and the investigation suffered due to non -production of seized torch and weapon of assault. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the nature of injuries found on the informant did not warrant such harsh punishment. As such, the appellants may be acquitted from the charge and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.;