YASEEN RAIEEN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an admitted Criminal Appeal (S.J.). The L.C.R has been received.

(2.) The instant I.A. has been filed for suspension of sentence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are five appellants and they have been convicted in connection with Sessions Trial Case no.11 of 2022, arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.243 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.781 of 2021 under Sec. 448/34, 323/34, 341/34, 307/34, 504/34, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 years for offence under Sec. 307/34 of the IPC and fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of fine, appellants to go R.I for 3 months and further the appellants to go S.I for 1 month for offence under Sec. 341/34 and find of Rs.500.00 and in default of fine, to go R.I for 15 days and further appellants to go under R.I for 6 months for offence under Sec. 323/34 and fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of fine, appellants to go R.I for 15 days and further appellants to go R.I for 1 year for offence under Sec. 504 /34 and fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of fine appellants to go R.I. for 15 days and further appellants to go R.I for 1 years for offence under Sec. 506/34 of the IPC and fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of fine, appellants to go R.I for 15 days and further the appellants to go R.I. for 6 months for offence under Sec. 448/34 and fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of fine appellants to go R.I. for 15 days and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. He submits that there is land dispute between the parties and there are utterances on behalf of both the sides. He further submits that appellant no.1 and 2 have been in judicial custody from 4/2/2021 to 29/6/2021 and appellant nos. 3 to 5 have been in judicial custody from 22/1/2021 to 22/1/2021 for one day only and thereafter after conviction they are in custody since 22/1/2024. He submits that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are interested witnesses and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are victim and P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have been declared hostile. By way of referring the statement of the P.W.1 he submits that he has admitted regarding the altercation with regard to drainage and P.W.2 has stated that occurrence took place due to parking of scooty. He submits that there are contradiction on statement of witnesses and the learned court has been pleased to convict the appellants and there is every chance that the appellants will be acquitted.