Corroborating evidence from eyewitness testimony and medical examination can be crucial in upholding a conviction. The court may consider the appellant's age and lack of criminal history in awarding a lenient sentence.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2003 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.128 of 1993/111 of 2002, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months only for an offence under section 324 of the IPC.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the informant Sidheshwar Ram, whose statement was recorded at Nawadiha police station on 14.06.1992 at 8.30 hours by Nawadih O.P., Jamua, in the district-Giridih (Jharkhand). The allegations as set out in the said fardbeyan were that the informant Sidheshwar Ram along with his son Binod Ram was in a grocery shop and his granddaughter Bibha Kumari was sleeping in a cot in front of shop, the accused appellant Indar Ram along with other accused persons (who were also tried by the accused appellant but acquitted) came there, started pelting stones and caused injury to Bibha Kumari and the matter was reported to the police station at 4 pm on the same day 14.06.92. Bibha Kumari was examined by doctor at Sadar hospital, Giridih at 12.00 am on 15.06.92. Formal FIR was drawn and Investigation commenced.

3. After submission of the charge-sheet, the case was transferred for disposal. Charges were framed against all the accused Indar Ram, Raghubir Ram, Bharat Ram, Ambika Ram and Brahma Devi u/s 337 and 147 IPC and Indar Ram-appellant was also charged separately u/s 307 IPC, in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned trial court after conducting the trial, the sole appellant found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC and the accused appellant and other co-accused persons have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 337 and 147 of the IPC.

4. Heard Mr. Mr. S.K. Murty learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that not a single independent witness supported the prosecution case. All independent witnesses are declared hostile and evidence of the interested witnesses are contradictory to each other; It is further contended that on perusal of the First Information Report and evidence, no specific allegations against the appellant are made out and all allegations are general and vague. It is pointed out that the I.O. has not been examined in this case and hence, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. Learned defence counsel further contended that altogether seven witnesses have been examined and their versions are contradictory to each other and therefore they are not reliable.

It is also urged on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is otherwise bad in law and harsh against the weight of evidence and suffers from vice of non-application of mind of the court below and hence the same is vitiated in law and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.

It is further contended by learned defence counsel that the charges were framed against several persons including this accused appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 147 of IPC but the accused appellant has been additionally charged with the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC also. Learned trial court after conducting the trial, has acquitted the co-accused persons namely Raghubir Ram, Bharat Ram, Ambika Ram and Brahma Devi and this accused-appellant have already been acquitted for the offences under Section 337 and 147 of the IPC, but this accused appellant Indar Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, which is under challenge by this accused appellant.

5. On the other hand the learned A