Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal no. 5 of 2000, whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 1994/96 (T.R. No. 639/99), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for three months and one year respectively has been dismissed.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a land dispute existing prior to the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several documents have been brought on record by the defence but none of the documents have been appreciated. It has been submitted that Exhibit-A, B and C sufficiently proves that the petitioners had the right title and ownership over the said land in question and were in actual possession of the same. It has been submitted that since the land in question belongs to the petitioners the question of attracting an offence u/s 149 and 379 of the I.P.C. does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that most of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution are interested witnesses as either they are the brother of the informant or are the purchasers of the property from the informant. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the period of sentence be suitably modified in view of the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996.;