JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the judgment dated 30.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro whereby the judgment of conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and 15 days Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code dated 03.07.2010 passed in G.R. Case No. 454 of 1998/T.R. No. 47 of 2010 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, has been upheld.

Arguments of the petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners though charged under Sections 323, 324/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, were convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced for six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that neither any doctor has been examined nor injury report has been proved. He has also submitted that there was a counter-case being Dugda Thana Case No. 22/1998 (Exhibit-A). Learned counsel submits that there was land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have remained in custody for the period from 28.09.2012 to 03.10.2012 during the pendency of present revision application and a few days must have been taken by them to furnish the bail bond before the learned court below pursuant to the order of bail passed by this court. Learned counsel submits that the incident in the present case is dated 29.06.1998 and more than 23 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of the petitioners may be modified and some fine amount may be imposed.

Arguments of the State

5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Shekhar Sinha, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that there are consistent evidences on record and concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and accordingly there is no scope for interference so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned.

While arguing on the point of sentence, learned counsel has submitted that if this court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioners, then appropriate fine amount/victim compensation may be awarded and the same may be remitted to the victim after due identification. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed under the provisions of Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Findings of this Court

6. The prosecution was launched by a written report of Lalita Devi on 29.06.1998 that she had gone to her field for sowing seeds along with her brother-in-law Sudarshan Nath Deo. As soon as her brother-in-law started sowing operation, the petitioners came and assaulted him. It has been alleged that petitioner no. 1 gave tangi blow to her brother-in-law and the petitioner no. 2 assaulted him with lathi and caused grievous hurt to him. On raising alarm, the villagers came to their rescue. On the basis of written report, Dugda P.S. Case No. 21 of 1998 was registered under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners.

7. Police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge-sheet against both of them and after cognizance, charges were framed for offence under the aforesaid sections.

8. Altogether, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the written report was exhibited and marked as Exhibit-1.

9. P.W. 3 – informant of the case