The main legal point established is the importance of corroborative evidence and the explanation of delay in lodging an FIR in determining the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2011 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, although they were acquitted from the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal appeal was partly allowed.

4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. Case No. 557 of 2008 / Tr. No. 535 of 2011 (arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No. 81/2008 dated 24.12.2008), had convicted the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months on each offence and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report, inasmuch as, the incident was dated 07.10.2008 and the FIR was instituted on 24.12.2008 and no independent witness has been examined. He submitted that P.W.-5 (son of the informant) is not a reliable witness as he stated that he had suffered some injury, but the doctor, who had treated him, has not been examined. He further submitted that three prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.- 6, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined. He submitted that the basic ingredients of the offences, for which the petitioners have been ultimately convicted, are not satisfied in the present case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners may be extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act or the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody and the petitioners are ready to deposit some fine amount or victim compensation.

7. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have remained in judicial custody from 29.11.2012 to at least 13.12.2012, when they were admitted to bail by this Court during pendency of the present criminal revision application and some more days must have been taken by the petitioners for furnishing the bail bond, etc. before the learned court below.

Submissions on behalf of the OppositeParty-State

8. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, so far as the offences under Sections 323, 448 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. He also submitted that the cause of occurrence was regular eve-teasing of the daughter of the informant by the Petitioner No.3-Ajay Prasad, which stood proved by the evidence of P.W.-2 Manju Kumari (daughter of the informant). He submitted that P.W.-5 has stated that when the Petitioner No.3-Ajay Prasad entered into his house, he was inside his house, but he was having fractured leg. He also deposed that no sooner the Petitioner No.3 arrived at his house, his parents came there and that the house of the Petitioner No.3-Ajay Prasad is about at a distance of 100 yards from his house. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that so far as the other two petitioners namely, Vinod Prasad @ Binod Prasad and Shrawan Prasad are concerned, they entered into the house and arrived at the spot and freed Ajay Prasad, who was confined in the room when caught in the house. The learned A.P.P. submitted