RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Uday Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rajmahal in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1999 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal in G.R. No. 261 of 1994 on 12.08.1999 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years whereas the petitioner No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel submits that only on account of minor dispute the incident had taken place. It has been stated that the injury suffered by the informant was opined to be simple in nature. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1994.;