RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) In this application the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 24.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1993/213 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.06.1983 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1982 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for three years has been affirmed by upholding the judgment of conviction under Section 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting the petitioners for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has measurably failed to prove its case. Learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused prejudiced to the defence. It has also been stated that even the doctor has not been examined and, therefore, the injury report could not be proved. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners have been acquitted by the learned appellate court under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and forcible entry has not been proved, the subsequent event of the petitioners committing assault upon the informant becomes doubtful. An alternative argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court has not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be suitably modified. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.;