RAGHU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 104.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.2000 of 1997 whereby and where under the petitioners appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No.1759 of 1994 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 380 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year has been dismissed.

(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all interested witnesses. It has further been stated that the incident had actually taken place on account of having wine in the house of the informant. Learned counsel submits that P.Ws.-2, 3, 5 and 6 who are said to have supported the prosecution case are all interested witnesses as they are related to each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted an alternative argument on the fact that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced substantially.