Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1119 (PAT)

Sheikh Saukat v. State Of Bihar

2001-12-12

S.N.PATHAK

body2001
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Criminal Appeal no. 40/99 confirming the judgment dated 24.4.99 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Purnea in G.R. case no. 1587/95, trial no. 82/99. The revisionists were convicted for the offences u/s 147, 447 and 323 of the IPC. 2. As alleged the revisionists along with others had trespassed over plot no. 144 and 145 of the complainant and they were transplanting paddy crops when the informant (PW 6) came and protested thereafter he was manhandled and assaulted. 3. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that as per Exihibit A one Sheikh Khilafat was the Sikmidar over the P.O land and revisionists no. 1 to 3 inherited this right from their father. So by virtue of their right they had gone to the P.O to transplant paddy so the case of the prosecution so far as the possession of the land is concerned is not established. Moreover, the allegation of assault is not directed against any specific accused revisionist so the conviction u/s 323 of the IPC was legally bad. 4. However, it has been submitted by the State lawyer supported by the informants lawyer through Vakalatnama that in a title suit filed by the admitted landlord of the suit land, Bibi Hakiman in which the informant, Sheikh Bhola was a party, Sikmidari right claimed by Sheikh Khilafat was negatived and title and possession of the plaintiffs including Sheikh Bhola was declared. So, there is no question of Sikmidari right existing in favour of the Sheikh Khilafat and consequently the possession of the revisionists no. 1 to 3 was also belied. Ex. 2 was a decree of the trial court in title suit no. 3186/64 establishing the aforesaid facts. The suit was decreed in the year 1968 and Bhola had purchased the suit land (P.O land) during the pendency of the title suit. 5. Both the lower courts examined the evidence of possession supported by the deposition of the witnesses examined in the trial court and held the informant to be in possession. 6. So the conviction of the revisionists u/s 447 and 147 of the IPC was perfectly legal and valid from the evidence adduced in the trial court. 5. Both the lower courts examined the evidence of possession supported by the deposition of the witnesses examined in the trial court and held the informant to be in possession. 6. So the conviction of the revisionists u/s 447 and 147 of the IPC was perfectly legal and valid from the evidence adduced in the trial court. So far as conviction u/s 323 of the IPC is concerned of course there was no specific evidence except the omnibus that the informant was assaulted when he protested to the act of the accused transplanting paddy crops in his field. So the order of conviction u/s 323 of the IPC may be a bit of the point, but so far conviction of the accused revisionists for the offences u/s 147 and 447 of the IPC that does not deserve any interference by this court. As far as the order directing he revisionists to furnish bond for maintaining peace and to be of good behaviour, t think the courts below were rather lenient in sparing the revisionists from the sentence. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the order of conviction u/s 323 IPC. Their conviction u/s 147 of the IPC shall remain intact.