JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Rev.P.01(AP)/2018 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Rev.P. 02(AP)/2018.

Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

1. The two criminal revision petitions are taken up together for disposal as both the petitions arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, West Siang District convicting all the petitioners herein out of the same prosecution and such judgment was affirmed by the appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 27.10.2017.

2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 401 read with 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been preferred by the present petitioners assailing the judgment & order dated 27.10.2017 in G.R. Case No. 54/2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, West Siang District and judgment & order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basar in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2017, whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.10.2017 was dismissed.

3. The prosecution case unfolded from the materials available on record is to the effect that at about 03:30 PM on 04.07.2011, the petitioners jumped over and assaulted badly the informant, Deputy Commissioner cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, when he rejected the bail applications preferred by the petitioners in connection with some criminal cases. It was further alleged that due to such assault, the informant sustained injuries on his person and the accused had also damaged the office chamber of the informant badly. On the date of incident itself, the F.I.R. was lodged before the Office-in-Charge, Alo, West Siang District. On the basis of the said ajahar, Alo P.S. Case No. 54/11 under Sections 86/332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act was registered.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioners namely Minto Ete, Nyali Bagra, Gebin Loya and Jomkar Loyi. Though it was alleged that one Gego Doji, assaulted the informant, no evidence was found against him and accordingly, he was not charge-sheeted. It is also disclosed in the charge-sheet that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer could not gather sufficient evidence to establish commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, charge-sheet under Section 451/186/332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act against the four petitioners namely, Minto Ete, Nyali Bagra, Gebin Loya and Jomkar Loyi was filed.

5. Based on the Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, framed charges against the accused petitioners under Sections 332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act. The charges were read out and explained to them but the accused persons/ petitioners had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence matter went up to trial.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined 19 (nineteen) witnesses including the I.O., the victim and the Doctor.

7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, had convicted the accused persons/ petitioners under Section 332 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

8. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, the learned trial court had held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charges brought against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence. By rejecting the arguments advanced by the learned defense counsel to the effect that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were full of inconsistencies and materia