The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for assault, emphasizing the reliability of injured witnesses and granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 27.02.2016, whereby all the four appellants have been acquitted of charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted under Section 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and two appellants Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid have also been found guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment of one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment of two years under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Two Appellants Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid have also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in case of default to pay the fine, they have been also directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution case.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report given by the informant, Shamima Khatoon is that at about 5:00 PM in the evening on 24.08.2012 when she had gone to the house of one Md. Mushtaque to ask for money, at that time itself the Appellant Md. Shahabuddin came out from his house and started abusing her and asked why she had gone to that mohalla. When she prohibited him from abusing, the Appellant, Md. Zahid, Md. Sagir Naddam, Amina Khatoon and Tarannum Khatoon also came out of their house and started hitting her by fist and legs. After seeing that the informant was being beaten, her cousin Md. Dablu and Md. Maqsood Alam came to save her. They were also assaulted by the Appellants. Md. Sahabuddin and Md. Zahid hit Md. Dablu on his head by iron rod. Md. Sahabuddin, Md. Zahid and Md. Sagir Naddam also assaulted her brother Md. Maqsood Alam by chhura causing injury on his head and they also assaulted him by iron rod on his arm. Md. Zahid and Amina Khatoon snatched chain from her neck and golden ear ring from her ear and payal from leg.

Factual background.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Pupri P.S. Case No. 150 of 2012 was registered against five accused persons including the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 379, 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions has framed charge against four accused persons including the Appellants under Section 341, 323, 504 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and later on the case of Md. Sagir was separated by the order dated 29.10.2015. The charge was read over to the accused which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial started.

5. During trial, altogether six prosecution witnesses were examined. P.W.-1 is Md. Jannat Hussain, who is father of the Informant. He is a chance witness. He reached the place of occurrence on hulla. P.W.-2 is Md. Maqsood Alam, who was also injured in the occurrence. P.W-3 is Md. Dablu who had also got injured in the occurrence. P.W.-4 is Shamima Khatoon, who is the informant herself and also received some injury. P.W.-5, Phooldeo Chaudhary, who is the I.O of the case and P.W.6 is Shri. Krishna Kumar Jha, who had examined all the victims of the case, namely, Maqsood Alam, Md. Dablu and Shamima Khatoon. In his examination, he has found incised wound of the size of 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on occipital region, besides bruise on other parts of his body. After examination of Md. Dablu, P.W.-6 has found lacerated wound measuring 12 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on scalp besides bruise on other parts of his body. After examination of Shamima Khatoon, P.W. 6 has found bruise on her person.

Statement under Section 313 Cr.PC

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under S