RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. Learned counsel for the State at the outset has submitted that appellant no. 2 namely Anhach Bhuiyan and appellant no.6 namely Raful Bhuiyan have died during pendency of this appeal and to that effect State has filed an affidavit enclosing the report of the OfficerIn-Charge of Patan Police Station, Palamau.

3. In view of the affidavit so filed by the State, the appeal as against appellant no. 2 Anhach Bhuiyan and appellant no.6 Raful Bhuiyan stands abated. Now the appeal survives only against appellant no.1, appellant no.3, appellant no. 4 and appellant no. 5.

4. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1992 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No. 86 of 1992, G.R. Case No. 1068 of 1992 by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 452,323,147 and 148 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 452 IPC; 6 months imprisonment separately under Section 323, 147, 148 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being Patan P.S. Case No. 86 of 1992 against the appellants. It has been alleged that by forming unlawful assembly the appellants have assaulted the victim by house trespassing.

6. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted chargesheet against all the appellants. Thereafter cognizance has been taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

7. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307, 326/149, 323 read with Section 149, 452, 147 and 148 of the IPC was framed on 28.08.1997 against the appellants who who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To substantiate the allegations altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been examined:

I. P.W.1-Raghuni Bhuiyan

II. P.W.2-Tetari Devi

III. P.W.3-Bhagirathi Bhuiyan

IV. P.W.4- Keshwar Bhuiyan

V. P.W.5- Rajdeo Bhuiyan

VI. P.W.6- Baghband Bhuiyan

VII. P.W.7-Kail Bhuiyan

VIII. P.W.8- Bishnu Bhuiyan

IX. P.W.9-Bhola Prasad

9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his prayer to the period of custody.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since there is no injury report on record, so at best conviction can be under Section 323 IPC and as such punishment of two years imprisonment is on the higher side. Further, it has been submitted that the incident is of the year 1992 and the appellants have remained in custody for more than six months and have suffered the agony of long trial.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=FARLzxb7T713hJCp0t1ikkPotmnLu6%2BRoUvSPbtW%2FczliEnzO7j20sXS29zzp02W&caseno=Cr.A(SJ)/329/2005&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010098332005&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.