ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S. K. Murtty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Party-State.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 39/2011, whereby the learned appellate court has upheld the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 326 and 341 of IPC passed by trial court’s judgment dated 09.08.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in T.R. No. 302/2011 arising out of Birni P.S. Case No. 44/2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 945/2000. However, the learned appellate court held that the separate sentence under Section 149 of IPC is not sustainable under law, which was set-aside. Further, the petitioners were directed to be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act upon execution of bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years. It was also directed that in case of violation of the condition of bond, they may be called upon to sustain the substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned court below.

Arguments of the petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, but there is no independent witness in the instant case, although the alleged occurrence has taken place in open field. He submits that P.W.-1 is the informant of the case and other witnesses except P.W.-5 (I.O. of the case), are the close relatives of the informant. He submits that there are several contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses, which have not been properly considered by the learned courts below. He also submits that there is land dispute between the parties and accordingly, benefit of doubt should have been given by the learned court below in favour of the petitioners. He submits that it is a matter of case and counter case and accordingly, conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Arguments of the Opposite Party-State

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party- State, while opposing the prayer, at the outset, submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing evidences on record and witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the side of the defence and minor contradictions cannot be ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He submits that injury reports of the victims have also been exhibited before the learned court below, which have corroborated the ocular evidence. The learned counsel submits that there is no scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned appellate court has modified the sentence of all the petitioners and has converted the same for only to the extent of executing of bond of Rs. 5,000/- each with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years. He also submitted that there was no interim order passed by this Court staying the furnishing of bond. From perusal of the Lower Courts Records, it appears that the bonds have already been furnished by the petitioners before the learned court below on 23.03.2012.

Findings of this Court

5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.06.2000, when the informant went to his land where he had sown maize crop one day ago, he saw that the petitioners who were ploughing their field, also started ploughing the field of all three sharers, which was objected by the informant. On that, accused persons threatened to leave him and the informant returned to his house. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 7:00 p.m. informant alongwith his brothers and nephew again went to the land and asked the accused persons not to plough th