The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent evidence from prosecution witnesses and medical reports to support the prosecution case, as well as the consideration of the circumstances of the case in modifying the sentences of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. This criminal revision petition has been directed against the Judgment dated 27.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Civil Courts, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 636 of 2004/ Trial No. 444 of 2009 (arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No. 60/2004 dated 30.08.2004) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and for 03 Years for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and therefore, they call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. She submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgments, it is apparent that there was land dispute between the parties and it was the Petitioner No.1-Baldeo Singh who was claiming the place of occurrence land. She further submitted that P.W.-1 has turned hostile and P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are interested witnesses and there is no independent witness and no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. She also submitted that it was mentioned in the fardbeyan that the petitioners were holding lathi, but during evidence, it was stated that the petitioners were holding spade, although neither any spade was produced during trial, nor any sharp cutting injury was found on the person of the Informant-victim as per the injury report prepared by the doctor.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the X-Ray plate has been marked as an exhibit with objection and on the basis of the same, it has been recorded that the victim had suffered the fracture injury, but the concerned radiologist has not been examined to prove the fracture injury and accordingly, the finding of the learned courts below that the victim had suffered fracture (grievous injury) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions and considering the facts that the incident is of the year 2004 and the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period of 01 month 25 days from 24.11.2009 to 17.01.2010 during trial and appeal and for a period of 01 month 09 days from 04.02.2015 to at least till 12.03.2015 when this criminal revision was admitted and they were directed to be released on bail i.e. at least for a total period of 03 months 04 days and they do not have any criminal antecedent, some sympathetic view may be taken and sentences of the petitioners may be modified to some extent.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that consistent findings have been recorded by both the learned courts below. She further submitted that so far as the X-Ray plate is concerned, the same has been exhibited, though with objection and the expert witness i.e. the doctor has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. She submitted that the fact regarding the fracture of the victim has come in deposition of the doctor and