- (1.) The petitioners have questioned the legality of the judgment dated 09.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Godda in Cr. Appeal No.25 of 2011/34 of 2014 whereby the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/ - with default clause dated 22.02.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in G.R. No.632 of 2006 (T.R. No.46 of 2011), has been affirmed.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts which is necessary for the proper adjudication of this revision application, in short, is that on the fardbeyan of Yaruddin Ansari -the informant (P.W.4) Godda (M) P.S. Case N0.178 of 2006 was instituted under Sections 323/34, 341/334, 325/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that one mason namely Pina Mian (P.W.2) was engaged by the informant for fencing the courtyard and when the said mason started the work at about 8.00 a.m., his neighborers Khairul Ansari and Jiyafat Ansari came armed with spade, lathi and danda and abused him and to the mason. When the informant opposed, Jiyafat called his son and assaulted the informant and Pina Mian both resulting in Pina Mian fell down on the ground. On raising alarm, neighborers came there and saved them. The police after investigation submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioners under Sections 341/323/325/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken on 23.08.2006. The prosecution, after framing of charge, examined altogether five witness and also brought on record some documents. The trial court on consideration of the evidences available on record and after hearing the parties, convicted the petitioners under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as indicated above. Being aggrieved, the two petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate court by the judgment dated 09.09.2015 affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioners to surrender in court below within a month to serve the rest punishment. Hence, this revision.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidences available on record in right perspective. Learned counsel tried to invite the attention of this Court to various parts of the evidence and developed his argument that the court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence and there are series of infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It was also contended that the doctor, who had treated the injured, has not been examined and that there was a land dispute between the parties. Lastly, it was submitted that the F.I.R. in question was lodged in the year 2006 and since then the petitioners have been facing the rigorous of trial and appeal and since the petitioners remained in custody for a week out of the sentence of three months, they deserve consideration and the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.;