ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Md. Imtiaz Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 06.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Sections 323, 447 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and also upheld the order of release of the petitioner on admonition extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The petitioner had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of release on probation dated 03.03.2012 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case No. 46 of 2004 / E. No. 15 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted under Sections 323, 448 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and was released with admonition for his act that he would keep good behaviour and his parents would keep him away from criminal activities.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were altogether four accused in the present case and out of them, only the petitioner was a juvenile and accordingly, his case was taken up by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they were tried by regular court and they have been acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. He referred to the judgment of acquittal of the other three co-accused persons as contained in Annexure-1.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, no specific allegation has been levelled against him. He referred to the evidence of C.W.-3 and submitted that C.W.-3 has not even specifically named the petitioner in the commission of offence. He further referred to Para-17 of the appellate court judgment to submit that the appellate court while sustaining the conviction of the petitioner found that it is true that the accusation has not been explained read with Section 34 of I.P.C, but from the material on record, it is apparent that all the accused persons including the appellant (petitioner herein) had attacked the Complainant and his brother conjointly and had made entry in the house also and thereafter, they had run away from there. The learned counsel submitted that the persons with whom the petitioner was said to have acted conjointly have already been acquitted by the learned regular trial court as per Annexure-1 and in such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, the petitioner may be acquitted.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was a counter case arising out of the same incident and the Complainant of the present case namely, Amaduddin Md. Atta has been convicted in the counter case. In course of hearing through video conferencing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of the Judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 162/2005 which was filed through e-mail of this Court and is tagged with the records of this case.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, did not dispute the fact that other three co-accused persons have been acquitted in criminal trial and so far as present petitioner is concerned, no specific allegation as such has been levelled against him. Learned A.P.P. also did not dispute the fact that C.W.-3 has not specifically taken the name of the petitioner in the commission of offences. He further did not dispute