RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 10.08.2001 passed by the 2ndnd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 1999 by 17 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1stst Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 2040 of 1996 (T.R. No. 1223 of 1999) arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 174 of 1996 by which the petitioner had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and two years respectively has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses being related to the victim are interested witnesses. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of the petitioner filing a case before the labour court for realization of his dues which could be gathered from ext./A and ext./A-1. In the alternative, an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modified in view of the fact that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and had also remained in custody for about five months.;