D.P. Singh, J. - (1.) All the four appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.1.2001/27.1.2001 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 464 of 1994 whereby and whereunder all the four appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years.
(2.) Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the night of 2.2.1991 the informant Chandrika Ram was coming back from Hussainabad market when the appellants at about 9 p.m. asked him as to why he has not paid Rs. 2000/- as demanded earlier. It is further alleged that when he asked for time to pay the amount he was assaulted by all the appellants resulting in fracture of his right and left hand. It is further alleged that on his alarm witnesses came and saved his life. He reported the matter to police in the morning of 3.2.1991 on the basis of which Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 14/1991 under Sections 323, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against all the appellants. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed against the appellants. The trial Court found and held the appellants not guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but held them guilty under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve R.I. for three years.
(3.) The present appeals has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has committed an error on records and law. According to this memo of appeals, all the witnesses have turned hostile and in absence of the doctor and Investigating Officer the conviction was bad in law. It is further asserted that in the event of compromise entered upon between the parties, the learned trial Court committed an error of law by not accepting the compromise petition just because it was not signed by the informant, Chandrika Ram who is admittedly dead. It is also admitted that the counter case filed by the appellants against the informant and his witnesses have been compromised and on the basis of which they were acquitted, therefore the appellants also deserve to be acquitted.;