RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the Judgment dated 02.05.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1994 whereby and where under the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1967 of 1990 (T.R. No. 455 of 1994) on 22.04.1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that save and except the evidence of P.W.3 there is no other eye witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be believed simply because of the fact that there are some major discrepancies in his evidence. It has also been submitted that the Investigating officer of the case did not seize the burnt Matador Van and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner.;