JURU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>PRASHANT KUMAR,J.</DJG> This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2011, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella in Complaint Case No. C/1 Case No.12 of 2004 (T.R. No.313 of 2011), whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. and petitioners were directed to undergo R.I. for one year and two years respectively for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below had not appreciated the evidence correctly, therefore, the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that so far the order of sentence is concerned, the same cannot be sustained, because the learned courts below had not assigned any special reason as required under Sec. 361 of the Cr. P.C. for not giving benefit to the petitioners available under the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Additional P.P. and Sri Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the complainant submit that the learned courts below after considering the evidences available on record come to the conclusion that the petitioners committed the aforesaid crime. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not require any interference by this Court.