Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1627 (PAT)

Ram Lakhan Jha v. State of Bihar

2012-12-05

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2000 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2000 passed in T.R. No.39 of 2000 by the court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Darbhanga, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the accused-appellant, Ram Lakhan Jha, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of the payment, he has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, and has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereas the other accused-appellants, namely, Bhabesh Jha, Ganesh Jha, Premchandra Jha and Satischandra Jha, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant, Dhakni Devi (P.W.3), gave the written report on 18.12.1994 at Police Station-Ghanshyampur to the effect that the area of 10 Kathas of Plot No.18 of Khata No.44 of Mahanthji is being cultivated by her on Batai since about 50 years. Since before six months, the accused-appellant, Ram Lakhan Jha, and others wanted to dispossess her from that land regarding which the occurrence of Maar-Peet took place and Case No.87 of 1994 is pending. In the said plot, the paddy crops were planted by her. In the night of 20.11.1994 some people cut the paddy crops. When she woke up in the morning, she saw the accused-appellants carrying the paddy crops in the bundle and collecting the same in their Khalian. One day earlier, the accused-appellants had asked her to withdraw the case otherwise they will cut her paddy crops and they did the same. In the night of 20.11.1994 some people cut the paddy crops. When she woke up in the morning, she saw the accused-appellants carrying the paddy crops in the bundle and collecting the same in their Khalian. One day earlier, the accused-appellants had asked her to withdraw the case otherwise they will cut her paddy crops and they did the same. The persons, who were engaged in cutting the paddy crops, were the accused-appellants, Ram Lakhan Jha, Ganesh Jha, Bhabesh Jha, Premchandra Jha and Satischandra Jha. The persons, who reached at the place of occurrence on her hullah, were Birju Paswan, Girwal Paswan, Jaya Jha and Jay Prakash Jha. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Dhakni Devi, Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No.130 of 1994 was instituted under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused-appellants on 19.12.1994 and after investigation police submitted the chargesheet and, accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Special Judge for trial, where the charges were explained to the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded. The defence, as appears from the trend of cross examination, is that the land in dispute has been purchased by the accused-appellants from Mahanthji but the sale deed could not be executed due to covering the land in ceiling but Jay Prakash Jha got implicated the accused-appellants due to litigation in between his Pattidar and accused-appellant no.1, Ram Lakhan Jha. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether four witnesses. They are Jay Prakash Jha (P.W.1), Girwal Pawan (P.W.2), Dhakni Devi (P.W.3), the informant of the case, and Rajendra Jha (P.W.4), who is farmer and has proved the formal F.I.R. as Ext.1. On the other hand, the defence has examined two witnesses, namely, Mahavir Pandey (D.W.1) and Chandra Kant Issar (D.W.2). 5. The trial court on considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubts 6. P.W.3, Dhakni Devi, is the informant of the case. P.W.3, Dhakni Devi, is the informant of the case. She has stated in her evidence that the occurrence took place four years ago at about 6 A.M. in the morning. At that time, she was carrying the cattle from the house in outside then she saw the accused-appellants, Ram Lakhan Jha, Ganesh Jha, Bhabesh Jha, Premchandra Jha and Satischandra Jha, cutting the paddy crops in her field. They were keeping the paddy crops in bundles in their Khalihan. The said land belongs to Mananthji, which was being cultivated by her on Batai since last 25 years, and she has planted the paddy crops in the said plot. This witness has further stated in her cross examination that she was cultivating the said land on Batai, the paper of which is at her house. She has further stated that she will examine Mahanthji in this case. The defence has drawn attention of this witness to the effect that she is not cultivating the land in dispute, belonging to Mahanthji, on Batai nor she has any paper regarding the same rather the said land was purchased by Ram Lakhan Jha from Mahanthji but the sale deed could not be executed due to covering of the said land in ceiling. This witness has further stated in her cross examination that the paddy crops were cut in the night and she came in the knowledge in the morning that the paddy crops were cut. She has further stated in her cross examination that in the same morning she had gone to Darogaji and at that time Muneshwar Das was with her. This witness has further stated in her cross examination that neither Darogaji came at the place of occurrence nor collected the paddy crops from the Khalihan. This witness has further stated in her cross examination that she had planted the paddy crops herself within two days. P.W.1, Jay Prakash Jha, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place three years ago at about 7 A.M. in the morning. At that time, he was going to an orchard to attend the call of nature and when he reached near the house of Most. P.W.1, Jay Prakash Jha, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place three years ago at about 7 A.M. in the morning. At that time, he was going to an orchard to attend the call of nature and when he reached near the house of Most. Dhakni Devi, he heard hullah and when he reached near the field of Dhakni Devi then saw that the accused-appellants, Ram Lakhan Jha, Ganesh Jha, Bhabesh Jha, Premchandra Jha and Satischandra Jha, were carrying the bundle of paddy crops to their Khalihan. The said land belongs to Mahanth Harigovind Das, which is being cultivated by Most. Dhakni Devi (P.W.3) on Batai. This witness has further stated in paragraph-4 of his cross examination that he had not seen Mahanth Harigovind Das and he also does not know his whereabouts. This witness has also stated in his cross examination that he does not know about the description of the land of Mahanth Harigovind Das nor he had seen the paper regarding the same. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that talk regarding cultivating the land on Batai in between Mahanthji and Dhakni Devi was not made in his presence and he had not seen cutting the paddy crops. P.W.2, Girwal Paswan, has also stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place four years and three months ago at about 6 A.M. in the morning. At that time, he was at his door and on the voice of Dhakni Devi he went near her field and saw that the accused-appellants, Ram Lakhan Jha, Bhabesh Jha, Ganesh Jha, Satischandra Jha and Premchand Jha, after cutting the paddy crops, were carrying the bundles of the paddy crops to their Khalihan. The paddy crops were planted by Dhakni Devi. The said land, on taking by Mahanthji on Batai, is being cultivated by Dhakni Devi. This witness has stated that in his cross examination that he is witness in two cases against Ram Lakhan Jha. This witness has further stated that Dhakni Devi (P.W.3) is his sister-in-law, who has her own land but he could not say the area of the same. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that all the lands of Mahanthji have been seized in ceiling. The land, from which the paddy crops were cut, is being claimed by Ram Lakhan Jha. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that all the lands of Mahanthji have been seized in ceiling. The land, from which the paddy crops were cut, is being claimed by Ram Lakhan Jha. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that the paddy crops were planted by Dhakni Devi with the help of labourers, her daughter and her daughter-in-law. 7. From the evidence of P.W.3, Dhakni Devi, it is clear that she is claiming to cultivate the land on taking the same on Batai from Mahanthji and she has paper regarding the same but neither the paper regarding the same has been brought on record nor Mahanthji has been examined in this case to support the prosecution case. While P.W.3, Dhakni Devi, has stated in paragraph-11 of her cross examination that she had planted the paddy crops alone, without taking the help of others, but P.W.2, Girwal Paswan, who is the neighbour of Dhakni Devi (P.W.3), has stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that he had seen planting the paddy crops on Batai by Dhakni Devi with the help of labourers, her daughter and her daughter-in-law. P.W.2, Girwal Paswan, has also stated in his cross examination that all the lands of Mahanthji were seized in ceiling and Ram Lakhan Jha is claiming the said land as he has purchased the same. As such, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the land, from which the paddy crops were being cut by the appellants, was being cultivated by the informant, Dhakni Devi (P.W.3), on Batai. Apart from that, while the occurrence is said to be of 20.11.1994 and the informant, Dhakni Devi (P.W.3), herself has stated in her evidence that she had gone to Darogaji after the occurrence in the same morning but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.12.1994, i.e., after one month of the alleged occurrence. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants for the offence under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are on bail, so they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.