Insufficiency of evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 548 of 1993 whereby and where under the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under—

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the statement of informant P.W. 5 Sit Ram Mahto who stated that on 3rd March 1991 Sunday at about 11.30 am the accused Ashok Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Anil Sao armed with garasa and pistol were getting the arahar (a kind of pulse) crop harvested with the help of 5 to 7 labourers standing in the field bearing plot no. 1388/2540 appertaining to khata no. 70 measuring an area of 2.62 ½ acres belonging to the informant Sita Ram Mahto (P.W. 5) for which a case was sub-judice before survey office. The informant Sita Ram Mahto went there and forbade them then the villagers had decided that the paddy, til, and urad crops would have been harvested by them (the accused) and he (the informant) was asked to harvest the arhar crop standing on the said land and thereafter, both the parties were asked not to go to the disputed land till the disposal of the case by the Court. The said decision was given by the villagers namely, Sewak Sao, Bechu Singh, Kauleshwar Singh (P.W.2), Naresh Ram (P.W.1) and others. Despite the said decision the aforesaid three accused were getting the arhar crop harvested standing on the said land and on being objected, the accused persons surrounded him and the accused Ashok Kumar gave garasa blows on his head and behind the neck with an intention to kill him and Pramod Sao fired at him from his illegal country-made pistol and hit on different places of right arm and on hulla, his son Sambhu Nath Mahto (PW4) came and he too was assaulted by accused Ashok Kumar with garasa on his head and rest two accused also assaulted him. The said occurrence was witnessed by Ram Prasad Ram P.W. 3 and other villagers.

3. On the basis of the FIR containing the aforesaid allegations a case was registered as Meral P.S. case No. 0020/1991 under sections 342, 324, 307/323 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons named above and after taking cognizance the case was committed to the court of sessions for its trial and disposal by the C.J.M. on 27.09.1993. Learned trial court after framing the charges on 23.07.1996 for the offence punishable u/ss 342, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against all the three accused appellants in both the criminal appeals and after concluding the trial the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which is under challenge.

4. Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. P.K Appu and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in this case neither the I.O. no