The court emphasized the necessity of considering all evidence and defenses presented under Section 313 Cr.P.C., especially when determining the rights to self-defense in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The present revision petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura in Case No. Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2019 (impuged order in Crl.Rev.P No.02 of 2022) and Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2019 (impuged order in Crl.Rev.P No.03 of 2022).

2. The accused persons and the review petitioners in Crl.Rev.P.No.2 of 2022 have challenged the order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2019, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura upheld the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sepahijala, Sonamura in GR-444 of 2011 sentencing the petitioners No.1 and 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of an offence under Section 448 of IPC with default tipulation and also sentenced the convict-petitioners No.1 and 2 to suffer R.I for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulations under Section 326 of IPC. The Court below further sentenced the convict-petitioners No.3 and 4 to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 448 of IPC with default stipulation and also sentenced the convict-petitioners No.3 and 4 to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation under Section 326 of IPC. All the sentences were passed to run concurrently.

3. Against the complaint filed by the complainant in Crl.Rev.P.No.2 of 2022, in Crl.Rev.P. No.3 of 2022, the complaint has also been filed by the review petitioner No.1 of the Crl.Rev.P.No.2 of 2022 against private respondents of Crl.Rev.P No.03 of 2022 and others. So both are counterblast complaints.

4. In Crl. Rev. P No.3 of 2022, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons, aggrieved thereby, the appeal was preferred and the First Appellate Court confirmed the order dated 07.02.2019 in its originality. Thus, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. The facts of the case in Crl.Rev.P No.02 of 2022 is that on 8th November 2011 in the evening hours, i.e. at around 6.00 P.M., accused persons namely Saktipada Chakraborty, Suman Chakraborty, Niva Chakraborty, and Dipti Chakraborty attacked on the informant Bivo Rani Chakraborty, Pramila Chakraborty and her sister Rama Chakraborty in their courtyard and also attack upon Rajat Jha (son of the elder sister of the informant). Thereafter, a written complaint was lodged to the then O/C Melaghar P.S Kajal Deb registered as Melaghar P.S case No.101 of 2011 dated 08.11.2011 under Section 448 /326/34 of IPC against. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 448 /326/380/34 of IPC vide Melaghar P.S C/S No.1/12. To prove the case, before the Trial Court, against the accused persons prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including the I/O of this case, and some documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, after the closure of the evidence, the Court below found all the accused persons guilty and sentenced as mentioned here-in-above, which was affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

6. In Crl. Rev. P. No.3 of 2022, during the Trial, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses including the I.O. of the case.

7. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bal, learned counsel appearing petitioners in both the review petitions as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for State respondents, and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel assisted by Ms. A. Saha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 in C