RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and where-under, the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.06.2004 passed in G.R. Case No. 101 of 1998 (T.R. No. 100 of 2004), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 354/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for eight months, has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It has further been submitted that the case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of informant, PW 5, who is said to have been accompanying PW 4 and PW 6 when the alleged incident had taken place. It has been further submitted that PW 7 and PW 8 have been declared hostile and the I.O. of the case has not been examined. An alternative argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be suitably modified in view of the long pendency of the case as also the fact that the petitioners had remained in custody for about two months out of maximum sentence of R.I. for 8 months.;