NARAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two revisions are filed by A4 and A3 respectively in G.R. Case No. 23/1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj. They were tried along with Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, who were arrayed as A1 and A2. In this order, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05 and the petitioner in Cr. Revision 1094/05 will be referred as A4 and A3 respectively and Ramdhani Pandey and Surendar Pandey, will be referred as A1 and A2 for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The petitioners in the above two revisions, A4 and A3, and other two accused were tried for offence punishable under Sections 148, 452, 324 and 323, I.P.C. The trial Court found them guilty of the above charges and sentenced each of them to one year under Section 148 as well as 452, I.P.C.. six months under Section 324, I.P.C. and three months under Section 323, I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. The petitioners and other two accused filed appeal in Cr. Appeal No. 63/1993 and the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Daltonganj, while remanding the case of Ramdhani Pandey (Al) on the ground that no charges were framed against him by the trial Judge, confirmed the conviction of the petitioners as well as sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court. The appellate Court found A4, petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 744/05, guilty for the offence under Section 452, I.P.C. and found A3, petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1094/05, guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 324, I.P.C. The sentence of one year imposed upon A4 and A3 by the trial Court was confirmed. The petitioners challenge their conviction and sentence by filing the above two revisions.

(3.) The allegation against the petitioners and the other two accused is that breaking open the door, they entered the house of the informant, Maheshawar Sharma, who was examined as P.W. 8, at about 9.00 p.m. on 11-1-1981 and thereafter Surendar Pandey caused injury on his right back with Baluwa and that A3, Arun Kumar Pandey, assaulted him with Chura on his head. The prosecution, in order to prove the above allegation, examined nine witnesses. P.Ws 3, 4, 5 as well as P.W. 8 spoke about the occurrence and the prosecution examined P.W. 7, the Doctor, who treated P.W. 8, Maheshawar Sharma, for the injuries found on his person and through him the injury report, Ext. 2, was marked. The Courts below accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and found the petitioners guilty.