The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to substantiate charges and provide corroborating evidence to support the case against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Bokaro, in S.T. No.247 of 1997, arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.1457 of 1996, whereby and where under the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148/323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year S.I. under section 148 of IPC, and one year S.I. under section 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The allegations against the appellants arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of informant Sonamani Manjhian recorded by S.I. Arvind Kumar Sinha I/C Amlabad O.P. (P.S.-Chandankiyari) on 24.11.1996 at 09.00 hours at village Harai Kurwa, district-Bokaro is that-

On 23.11.1996, informant along with her daughters Robari Manjhian, Dhobani Manjhian, Surubali Manjhian and son-in-law Sohrai Manhi and Ramlal Manjhi were harvesting her paddy crops in her paddy field situated at Mahal Tola Gahira. In the evening when they were collecting the paddy crops at about 6 pm, Budheshwar Manjhi, Polen Manjhi, Shiva Manjhi, Binod Soren and Somiya Manjhi came with deadly weapons and buffalo Cart to the field and started loading the harvested paddy crops on the buffalo cart claiming the field to be their own. When the informant and her family members raised objection, Binod Soren inflicted a tangi blow causing bleeding injury in the right elbow of the informant. Budheshwar Manjhi was holding a Farsha in his hand and was instigating other accused persons. Polen Manjhi assaulted Dhobani Manjhian on her legs with the help of Khuladhi. Shiva Manjhi was holding bow and arrow, Somiya Manjhian was holding a lathi. They all assaulted the members of informant party. In the course of the assault, Budheshwer Manjhi received injury and fell down on the ground. Informant and her other family members fled away from the field.

3. On the basis of the aforsaid fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.78 of 1996 dated 24.11.1996 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 307,149,379 of IPC was registered against the accused appellants and the case was entrusted for investigation. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against all the named accused persons under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. R.C.P Sah appearing on behalf of the appellants and Santosh Kuamr Sukla APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is contrary and bad in law as well as on fact and circumstances of the case and also contrary to the material evidences available on record. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supressed the material facts that the prosecution parties were convicted for the offence of murder of Budheshwar Manjhi. Further the injuries explained by the P.W.s are not corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside

6. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State contended that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 148/323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence accordingly and hence there is no merit in the appeal and it is fit to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the materials available on records including the lower court records.

Appraisal & Findings

8. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the d