RAMESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS were convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months of imprisonment. Against the order of their conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial court, the petitioners and preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The lower appellate court after elaborating the evidences on record, have concurred with the findings of the trial court and observed that there was sufficient and reliable evidence to hold the accused/ petitioners guilty for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) FROM the judgment of the trial court as also of the lower appellate court, I find that both the courts below have considered and evaluated the evidences on record. The witnesses happen to be the injured persons and they have been cross -examined at length and their testimony, as observed by the trial court as also by the appellate court, do not appear to have been shaken, as the concurrent findings on facts on the basis of the evidences on record, have been recorded by both the courts. As regards the claim that the doctor has not been examined nor any medical evidence has been adduced on record, such claim cannot be entertained in view of the fact that for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, medical evidence may not be altogether insisted upon if the oral evidence inspires confidence and suggests that the victims were subjected to use of force by the accused persons, as result of which, they suffered pain. I do not find any ground to differ with the findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court in respect of conviction of the petitioners for the offence mentioned above.