Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal no. 9 of 1998 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.01.1997 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 816 of 1994 (T.R. No. 678 of 1998) has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified by giving the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act by directing the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year.
(3.) The First Information Report was instituted by one Parwati Devi (P.W.1) on the allegation that when she had woken up in the morning and opened the door of her house the petitioners had entered into her house and started pulling her saree with a view to disrobe her. It is alleged that the informant had raised alarm upon which all accused persons assaulted her and snatched away a silver hasuli from her neck and also amriti from her wrist. It is also alleged that when the mother-in-law of the informant had come to rescue her the petitioner no. 1 had assaulted her on the head which caused a bleeding injury to her. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 2 had gave a lathi blow on the thigh of the informant. After the First Information Report was registered the case was investigated by the Police and subsequent to the same charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 323, 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month whereas petitioner no. 3 was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month. In appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 1998, although the order of conviction was sustained but the sentence awarded to the petitioners was modified by giving the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.;