ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard.
2. This case has been transferred from Patna, Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, Ms. Shaila Minz, assisted the Court on behalf of the appellants as arnicas cariae.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.7,1994, passed by Shri Shyama Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1992 convicting the appellants under Section 225, IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. By the same judgment one Munna Mian @ Bablu Mian was convicted for the charges under Section 376/511, IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for five years. However, we are concerned in this case with the appellants who have been convicted under Section 225, IPC.
4. The prosecution case in short is that on 22.6.1990, at village-Khairabad, PS, Madhupur, District-Deoghar, the said Munna Mian attempted to commit rape on the informant Suraj Marii Soren (PW 4) at about 5.30 p.m., when she was washing her hands and feet in the ‘joria,’ On alarm Sahdeo (PW 1), Loba Ram Mararidi (PW 2), PW 3 and others reached there and caught Munna Mian on chase and wanted to take him to the local Police Station but in the meantime, the appellants and other 15 persons arrived and forcibly rescued Munna Mian.
5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, PWs 1, 2, and 3 are the villagers. PW 4 is the informant and PW 6 is her husband. PW 5 is tendered witness and PW 4 is a formal witness.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined, which has caused prejudice to the defence. It is further submitted that there are vital contradictions on the point of place of occurrence. The informant neither named nor identified the appellants.
7. Learned State counsel submitted that the evidence of the witnesses is consistent to prove the charges under Section 225, IPC against the appellants. PWs 1 and 2 are the independent villagers. PW 3 though hearsay, is also an independent witness. PW 6, who is the husband of the informant, is the eye-witness to the entire occurrence. Mr. Verma, learned State counsel further submitted that the informant identified the appellants by face but could not disclose their names. The names of the appellants were disclosed by the eye-witnesses as aforesaid. He further submitted that in these circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the defence due to non-examination of the Investigating officer. He further submitted that there is no vital contradiction in the evidences and he lastly submitted that the accused Munna Mian has been rightly convicted.
8. After hearing the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the materials on record, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The independent witnesses have proved that Munna Mian was caught on chase ultimately, and when he was being taken to the police Station, the appellants alongwith others rescued him. There is no motive for false implication of the appellants.
9. Heard Ms. Minz, learned amicus curiae on the question of sentence. Ms. Minz submitted that the alleged occurrence took place about 15 years ago and the appellants have suffered this case and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending them again to jail to serve out the sentence.
10. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellants under Section 225, IPC. However, I am inclined to modify the sentence to the period already undergone by them, if the appellants deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) each as a fine within two months from the date of communication of this judgment, failing which they will undergo imprisonment of one month. The appellants are on provisional bail. If the fine is deposited by them or imprisonment is undergone in default to pay fine, they will be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
11. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part by maintaining the conviction and modifying the sentence as aforesaid. Appeal allowed in part.