Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Apurv, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1991 by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.04.1991 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dumka in P.C.R. Case No. 145 of 1987 (T.R. No. 672 of 1991), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/Ss. 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing them to various terms, has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the plot itself was disputed about which it was alleged that the petitioners had committed trespass and stolen away paddy crops. Learned counsel further submits that several documents were exhibited by the defence to substantiate their cases, but the same was not considered. Both the courts only on the basis of evidence of complainant have convicted the petitioners without considering the fact that there are vital contradictions in the evidence. An alternative argument has been advanced that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of prosecution case since 1987 and they have also remained for sometime in custody.;