(1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 30/1/2014 and 31/1/2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in S.T. no. 10 of 2013, the appellant preferred this appeal with a prayer to set aside the finding of the learned Court below mainly on the ground that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State disputed the same and contended that the learned trial Court has taken care of all the material aspects and has come to a correct finding, which does not call for any interference.
(3.) In the interest of effective adjudication, factual scenario needs to be revisited.