In a case with competing allegations, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when inconsistencies arise regarding injuries sustained by both parties.

Ratnaker Bhengra, J:

1. When the matter is called out, counsel for the State is present.

2. It is seen that this appeal was part-heard on 01.10.2018. Thereafter, on two other dates i.e. 26.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 this appeal was taken up. On 02.11.2018, counsel for the appellants had requested that this case be put up on 30.11.2018. On 30.11.2018, counsel for the State has appeared and made his submissions.

3. As per the report of officer-in-charge of Mihijam police station dated 12.03.2018 appellant No.8, Arjun Mandal, S/o Golak Mandal has died. Hence, his appeal stands abated.

4. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2003, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 179 of 1997, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 152 of 2001, wherein the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge has convicted all the nine appellants, guilty of having committed offences under Sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 148 of the and further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of the . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The case of the prosecution, as per the fardbeyan of Suwalal Mondal, PW-8, recorded on 24.03.1996, is that about five months ago, there was a quarrel between him and Nabik Mondal and his brother. Due to this quarrel on 24.03.1996 at around 10:00 a.m. Nabik Mondal, Shymal Mondal, Asim Mondal, Fatik Mondal, Arjun Mondal, Parimal Mondal, Bisambar Mondal, Sanjeet Singh, Pappu Kr. Singh and Upendra Ram came to his village Kalahi. They were armed with pistol, lathi, tangi, bricks and stones. After breaking his door by tangi accused entered into his house with intention to kill him and his wife and fired shot from pistol, however, the cartridge hit the wall. Thereafter, the accused injured him and his wife with bricks and stones.

6. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police instituted Mihijam P.S. Case No. 74 of 1996 and commenced investigation. Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, witnesses were examined and trial was continued and at the conclusion of the trial, the accused or the appellants, herein, were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

7. Prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses in support of its case. Defence produced three witnesses.

8. PW-8, Suwalal Mondal, is the informant and an injured witness of this case. He has deposed in his evidence that all the ten accused persons armed with pistol, bomb, kulhari, lathi, bricks and stones had come to his house. He shut the door but the accused persons broke open the door by kulhari and entered into his house. Ashim and Fatik assaulted him with lathi on his right arm. When his wife came to rescue him she sustained injury by lathi on her left leg as a result her leg was fractured. From his house, thereafter, the accused entered into the house of Dhirendra Pandit. His fardbeyan was recorded by the police. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext. 2/1. He also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan of officer-in-charge G.P. Mishra marked as Ext.3. He was treated at Mihijam Hospital. In his cross-examination, he said that regarding the sa