Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 06.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 5, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.08.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad in G. R. No. 1140 of 1990 corresponding to T. R. No. 180 of 1996 under Sections 323 and 353 of I.P.C. has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified and reduced to 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 323 of I.P.C. as well as 3 months S.I. under Section 353 of I.P.C. while affirming the fine of Rs. 300/- as imposed by the learned trial court.
(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the informant and the other persons were working on railway track when the petitioner had come with two bucket of water and asked the informant and others to stop the work. On being protested, the informant and the other railway employees were assaulted leading to institution of G. R. No. 1140 of 1990. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken charges were framed for the offence under Sections 323, 341 & 353 of I.P.C. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 09.08.1996 convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 & 353 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1996 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 5, Dhanbad on 06.11.2004 by modifying the sentence to the maximum period of 3 months under Sections 323 & 353 of I.P.C. while maintaining the amount of fine of Rs. 300/- imposed by the learned trial court.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses are railway employees and therefore, they are interested witnesses and as such their evidences cannot be relied upon. He has also stated that the Investigating Officer of the case were never examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. In the alternative, an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be reduced substantially considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since 1990 and also for some time remained in custody.;