RANCHI, India, June 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 12:

1. Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 03.09.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.62 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, whereby and whereunder learned appellate court has rejected the appeal of petitioners with modification in conviction and sentence. Petitioners/accused persons were held guilty by learned Trial Court in G.R. Case No.180 of 2008/T.R.No.138 of 2014 by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2014 for the offence under sections 147, 323, 341, 325 and 504 of IPC, while in appeal filed by the petitioners, learned appellate court had found the petitioners guilty for the offence section 323 of IPC and not under sections 147, 334, 504 and 325 of IPC and sentenced them for S.I. of 6 months for the offence under section 323 of IPC.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 29.03.2008 at about 7:00 am, an altercation has broken out between the parties due to picking of Mahua. After sometime, when the husband of the informant was coming home after attending natures call, the accused persons started abusing him and directed him not to pick Mahua. Upon which, the informant's husband replied that he has not gone for picking Mahua, the accused persons assaulted him brutally as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his person and the daughter of the informant was also assaulted. It is suspected that in the assault, the informant's husband got right hand fractured.

4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Domachanch P.S. Case No.117 of 2008 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307, 504/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. On the above, learned court pleased to take cognizance of offences against the accused persons and charges were framed under sections 147, 323, 341, 325 and 504 of IPC and read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=7yg5D%2FmJmLJFbv9l4Wl3vUqJPzKZsQR2GA57yueau%2BqUOVnrf%2FI%2FQeFxip6WZyOS&caseno=Cr.Rev./1643/2016&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010134922016&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.