JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 21.06.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1998 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1117 of 1995 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/ss 147, 342, 448, 427 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to various periods of imprisonment has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are vital contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with respect to the manner of assault upon the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation made of breaking the door and violence has been falsified by the evidence of P.W.6 the Investigating Officer who had not found any such sign on the door. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even otherwise the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution witnesses are closely related with the informant party. 4. Mr. V.S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has supported the impugned judgment. 5. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the accused persons variously armed had abused the informant and her family members on which the informant had closed the door. It is also alleged that the petitioners climbed on the roof and tried to break the tiles as well as the door with a tangi. On the alarm raised by the informant party the accused persons had fled away. It is also alleged that when the informant along with her son-in-law were going to the Police Station for lodging the First Information Report the petitioner no. 1 had intercepted them and had pushed the informant on the ground as a result she had lost her tooth. Based on the aforesaid allegation Rehla P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 was instituted against the petitioners. 1 had intercepted them and had pushed the informant on the ground as a result she had lost her tooth. Based on the aforesaid allegation Rehla P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 was instituted against the petitioners. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Daltonganj wherein after trial the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 342, 448, 427 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and variously sentences under the said sections were imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 1998 which however was dismissed on 21.06.2001 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj by affirming the judgment of conviction but reducing the sentence by enhancing the fine which was imposed by the learned trial court. 6. It appears that in course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the son-in-law of the informant whereas P.W.2 (Dipkali Devi) is the informant herself. P.W.3 is the husband of the informant. P.W.4 is the son of the informant and P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of the informant. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer (Ram Tapeshwar Yadav). It appears from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that so far as the attempt made by the petitioners in breaking the door their evidence is consistent. The evidence of the informant (P.W.2) has further been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 with respect to the assault committed upon the informant at the time when they are going to report the matter to the Police. Although P.W.6 the Investigating Officer did not find any signs of violence on the door in question but that by itself could not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 with respect to the manner of assault upon the informant. So far as P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are concerned although they have stated on similar lines to that of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but admittedly they were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. In view of the consistent evidence brought forward by the prosecution the petitioners had rightly been convicted by the learned trial court. So far as P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are concerned although they have stated on similar lines to that of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but admittedly they were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 7. In view of the consistent evidence brought forward by the prosecution the petitioners had rightly been convicted by the learned trial court. The learned appellate court on consideration of the entire facets of the case had reduced the period of sentence by enhancing the amount of fine. I do not find any reason to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, this application fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.