IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that in cases of assault where injuries are primarily simple, a lenient approach to sentencing may be appropriate, especially when significant time has elapsed since the incident and the accused have no prior criminal record.]

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 20th January 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in S.T. No.55 of 2011, in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No.144 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.961 of 2010, whereby and where under, while acquitting the Appellants under Section 307 of I.P.C., has convicted the appellants for committing the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., Six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and fine of Rupees 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo imprisonment for three months and further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The Prosecution story arose in the wake of fardbeyan of PW-3, Thakur Das Mahto, which is recorded by S.I. Mani Bhushan Prasad, O/c –Chandil P.S. on 25.11.2010 at 9:55 hours at Santi Seva Sadan, Chilga.

The prosecution story as unfolded in the fardbeyan is that the informant of this case namely Thakur Das Mahato is resident of village Dhatkidih under Chandil P.S and owner of a crasher machine. It is alleged that on 25.11.2010 the informant was ill due to cold and cough and he went to Dr. Yogendra Nath Mahato for treatment. After taking medicines, when the informant was returning to his village on his motorcycle, at about 8.45 am when he reached near Chilgu Morh, then Bibhuti Mahato @ DVC gave signal to stop the informant. The informant stopped there. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of scarf of the informant and stated that informant had assaulted his son Jiten Mahato in the last Durga Puja. Then, the informant said that he had not assaulted to his son. In the meantime, accused Bibhuti Bhusan Mahato with intention to kill him, gave lathi blow on his forehead. The informant sustained injury and blood was oozing and in the meantime, Jiten Mahato came there armed with iron rod and gave iron rod blow to the informant. As a result, he sustained injuries on his right leg behind knee and his leg was fractured. He also sustained injury on his left leg and wrist of left hand. The informant fell down and in the meantime, the villagers gathered there and they have taken the informant to Shanti Seva Sadan where he gave his fardbeyan.

3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Chandil Police has registered Chandil P.S. Case No.144 of 2010 u/s 341, 323, 325, 307 & 34 of the I.P.C against both the accused persons and after lodging the F.I.R, investigation of this case was taken up and after completing the investigation, the I.O of this case has submitted charge-sheet against the above accused persons in the aforesaid sections and cognizance was taken in this case on 23.02.2011 by the then learned C.J.M., Seraikella in the aforesaid sections and the record was transferred to the Court of A.C.J.M., Seraikella for commitment of the case. Learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan has framed charge under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court after full-fledged trail passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 325 read with section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., Six months Rigorous Imprisonment for t