IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 305 of 2015 arising out of Piribazar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each along with fine of rupees ten thousand (Rs. 10,000/-) each for the said offence. In case of default in payment of fine, they will further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each.

2. According to written report of informant (PW-4), the occurrence is of 24.02.2015 at near about 8:30 AM whereafter FIR was registered by Ashutosh Kumar, S.H.O. of Piribazar.

3. The prosecution case, as stated by the informant, in brief, is that on the fateful day i.e. 24.02.2015 at near about 8.30 AM, appellants and other reached at the gate of informant and they are said to have threatened abusingly for settling the matter in question otherwise appellants and other would kill. It is further stated that when the abuse was protested by the informant's mother, appellants and other keeping lathi, danda and khanti in their hands assaulted upon the head of informant's mother due to which she fell down. The informant came on running on hearing the noise and saved his mother. It is said to have claimed by the informant that threatening was made again and again for settling the dispute in question otherwise all would be killed.

4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Piribazar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2015 dated 24.02.2015 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307/34 of the IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 447, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and investigation kept pending against those accused persons who were found absconding. Thereafter, on 08.07.2015 the learned trial court took cognizance against the appellants under the aforementioned sections of IPC. On 24.07.2015 the case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court was pleased to frame charges against the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 325/34 of the IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. PW-1 Polo Mandal, PW-2 Jaikant Mandal, PW-3 Poonam Kumari, PW-4 Rajiv Kumar (informant of the case), PW-5 Dr. Dhirendra Kumar and PW-6 Manoj Kumar Singh (I.O. of the case).

Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record:

6. Defence of the appellants as gathered from the line of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial. However, they did not enter into defence.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellants and to sentence them as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

8. Heard Mr. Rabi Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants at sufficient length of time. Following submissions have been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants:

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the perusal of FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation of assault against any person and FI