JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

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

3. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.8.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge–IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court, but modified the sentences of the petitioners and the petitioners were ordered to be released on their furnishing probation bond of Rs.3,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year and in the meantime, they were directed to keep peace and to be of good behaviour and dismissed the criminal appeal with modification in the sentences of the petitioners.

4. The learned trial court, vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 3070/2001 (T.R. No. 77/2011), had convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate court has given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, but the conviction by itself is a stigma upon the petitioners and accordingly, the case may be decided on merits.

6. He further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the instant case due to previous enmity arising out of existing land disputes between them and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the impugned judgments are fit to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioners, they may be given sufficient time to furnish the required bonds as directed by the learned appellate court, if not already furnished.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party–State

8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State submitted that there is concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope of re-appreciation of the evidences in revisional jurisdiction and therefore, no interference is called for in the present case.

Findings of this Court

9. The prosecution story in brief as per the written report of informant Dhaneswar Saw (P.W-3) is that on 24-10-2001 at 09 a.m, the petitioners tried to set up bicycle stand on the land of the informant on Plot No.1974, Khata No.138. When the informant protested, the petitioners assaulted him due to which he sustained injuries. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Chirkunda (Gulpherbari) P.S. Case No.159/2001 was registered under Sections 147, 149, 341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. On 14.07.2004, substance of accusation was explained to the petitioners in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. P.W.-1 is Dr. Braj Bhushan Pd. Singh who deposed that on 24.10.2001, he examined Dhaneswar Saw and found swelling over his left eye, abrasion below the left eye, near the chin and near the right elbow. He found that the nature of injuries was simple and were caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury was caused within 12 hours. He identified his writing and signature on injury report which was marked as Exhibit-1. During cross-