Consistency in witness testimonies and the principle of enmity as a double-edged weapon influenced the court's decision in upholding the conviction and releasing the appellants after due admonition.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in S.T. No. 117 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned court below convicted the appellants u/s 341, 323 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one month each under sections 341 of IPC, RI for six months each under section 323 of IPC and further RI for two years each u/s 325 of IPC and further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 02.08.1998, the informant and his cousin brother Rewat Rana were ploughing the field at mauja Barasinga Bahiyar at about 9.30 a.m. when the accused Angrej Roy and Congress Roy came there and started to uproot the seed plants of paddy crops from the field of the informant. The informant protested them upon which the accused persons abused him and claimed the said land as their own. Thereafter, the accused Congress Roy gave blows by a piece of bamboo to the informant causing him injuries on left hand, shoulder, back and neck. The informant fell down and thereafter the accused Angrej Roy further assaulted the informant by danda. Rewat Rana tried to save the informant, but, he was also assaulted by the accused persons. On alarms the witnesses reached there. However, Rewat Rana fled away to his village and when the witnesses reached the place of occurrence they sprinkled water on the face of the informant on which the informant regained his consciousness. He has further alleged that the accused persons are mighty persons and he came to Sadar Hospital, Giridih on 3.8.1998 and got himself treated there.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ramesh Rana this case was registered as Deori P.S. Case No. 77/98 u/s 341, 323, 325, 307/34 of IPC against the above named accused persons and the cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M. Giridih under the aforesaid sections against the above named accused persons and committed this case to the court of sessions on 06.03.2000 for trial and disposal where this case was numbered as S.T. Case No. 117 of 2000. Thereafter charge was framed u/s 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 & 307/34 of IPC on 14.08.2001 against the above named accused persons. The learned trial court after conducting the trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge.

4. Heard Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and against the material evidences brought on record and the evidences brought on record by the prosecution have not been analyzed in a holistic manner.

6. Further, it has been pointed out that the non-examination of I.O. has caused the serious prejudice to the defence of the appellants and the learned court below has also failed to appreciate that there was an old enmity due to land dispute between them and other family members and the appellants have also not been properly examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. Further, it has also been pointed out that at the time of trial both the appellants Congress Roy was aged about 45 years old and Angrej Roy was 56 years old and over a period of time now they have become very old i.e. aged about 65 and 70 years respectively and they have been suffering from trauma and misery of criminal prosecution for a long period of time and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence and he may be released on probation u/s 360 of Cr.P.C.

Arguments advances on behalf of the State

7. On the other hand, leaner A.P.P. for the State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants after appreciating the entire