RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2., learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Cr. Appeal no. 53 of 2001 whereby and where-under the judgment and conviction dated 23.02.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Khunti in G.R. No. 474 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 217 of 2001 has been affirmed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners have been modified.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that save and except the evidence of the informant P.W.5 there is no other eye witness with respect to the alleged out raging of her modesty. It has also stated that so far as the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are concerned the same cannot be believed in absence of examination of Md. Sahid who was also alleged to have witnessed the second part of the occurrence. 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.;