JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2002 corresponding Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2002 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 164 of 2000, Rajmahal in the district of Sahibganj, Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 148, 323/149, 326/149 and 307/149 of IPC and further the learned trial court directed the appellant to undergo RI for two years u/s 148 IPC and RI for 6 months u/s 323/149 and RI for 6 years u/s 326/149 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) and RI for 6 years u/s 307/149 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stating the prosecution case as unfolded in the fardbeyan of P.W. 3 Kalpana Devi (mother of injured Ajit Barai) recorded by ASI Nandan Chaudhary of Rajmahal P.S. on 24.09.2000 at 17.30 hours at referral hospital Rajmahal is as under:

It has been alleged by the informant that on 24.9.2000 at about 3.30 P.M. her son Ajit came from the haat (village market) after selling rice. In the meantime he saw the accused Mantu Pd. Saha asked him as to why did he get his name struck out from list of distribution of wheat for relief. Thereupon an altercation took place between them. Then the accused Ramani Sarkar came there and took away Mantu Pd. Saha to haat. After some time all the accused persons (Mantu Prasad Saha, Ramani Sarkar, Vishwjeet Sarkar, Sanju Sarkar, Kalachand, Bilkhan Mandal, Bijay Sarkar, and Sunil Basu) came to the house of informant armed with farsa, lathi, hasua and gupti and abused Ajit Barai. The accused Ramani Sarkar ordered to assault and Ramani Sarkar assaulted Ajit by farsa on his head. As a result, Ajit fell down and the other accused persons assaulted him with lathi and hasua. The injured sustained injuries on the various parts of his body. Ajit was brought to Rajmahal hospital for treatment.

The police after recording the fardbeyan of the informant registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 307 I.P.C. against the eight accused persons and after investigation submitted charge sheet against all accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 504 of I.P.C. The learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal took cognizance of the offence accordingly and after complying with the provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions. Learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajmahal had framed charge under sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 of IPC on 20th June 2003.

Learned trail court after conducting the full-fledged trail passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Deen Dayaal Saha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, leanred Addl. P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is bad in law as well as on facts of this case and further submitted that IO in this case has not been examined and it caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant. Further it has been pointed out that medical evidence on record does not support the prosecution case and it has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that three independent witnesses P.W.1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have been declared hostile. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that the injured P.W. 7- Ajit Barai was an accused in a case of the murder and the enmity between the parties were admitted by the prosecution and in absence of any glaring evidence the learned trial court has failed to appreciate