The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial evidence to support a conviction under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, and the court's discretion in imposing appropriate sentences based on the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.11.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV (Fast Track Court) Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2002, arising out of Nala P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 137/1995, Jamtara, Jharkhand whereby and where under the accused appellant has been convicted under sections 452 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year under section 452 of IPC and further sentence for six months rigorous imprisonment u/s 323/34 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of Jiyamuni Mondal (P.W. 5) and the fardbeyan was recorded by Talo Soren, Police Officer at Nala Hospital on 27.03.1995 at 20:00 hours in Nala Government Hospital in the district of Jamtara. In her state ment she stated that at 2 o’clock in the afternoon she was taking lunch when Manik Bouri and Badal Bouri entered her house and abused her and ordered to kill. She got frightened and requested not to assault her. Then altercation took place and then Manik Bouri caught hold of her both hands and Badal Bouri made a stroke from knife (used to cut Tari) by which She received injuries on neck, left ear, and right shoulder and fell on the ground. She lost her sense, but, before that, on raising alarm witnesses Godhar, Sankar, Haru and others came there and saw the occurrence. Thereafter, both the accused persons fled away. The cause of occurrence is said to be of earlier occurrence which had taken place one month before when the accused persons came to her house and asked for Daru (wine), but, she refused and told that she did not sell wine (Daru) then both the accused persons threatened to kill her.

3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Officer-in-Charge Nala P.S. registered the case as P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 u/s 341, 448, 324,307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 32/1995 dated 31.07.1995 u/s 341, 448, 324, 307/34 of IPC against the accused persons (there were two accused persons one of whom Badal Bouri was declared absconder in this case vide order dated 25.06.2003 by the learned court below). Cognizance was taken on 30.08.1995 and the case was committed to the court of sessions on 11.12.1995. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka framed charge on 5 August 1997 against both the accused (Manik Bouri and Badal Bouri) under sections 452, 341, 307/34 of IPC.

4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned Advocate and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial court ignored the vital lacuna in the case of the prosecution that neither the I.O. nor the Doctor has been examined and the appellant has been convicted u/s 323/34 & 452 of IPC. Further, the learned trial court also relied upon the Jiyamuni Mondal (P.W. 5) and other witnesses who are hearsay and tendered witnesses and, therefore, the case of the prosecution has not been substantiated beyond the reasonable doubts and the appeal deserves to be admitted by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Arguments on behalf of the learned A.P.P. for the State

7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidences of witnesses particularl