Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 255 (JHR)

Anita Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-18

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 14.02.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2000 affirming the order of conviction of the petitioners passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in G.R Case No.394 of 1997 (T.R. No.160 of 2000) for the offence under Sections144, 379 of the Indian Penal Code sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/-by each of the accused/ petitioners under Section 144 I.P.C and a fine of Rs.1,500/-by each of the accused/ petitioners under Section 379 I.P.C and in failure to pay the fine to undergo S.I for six months and it was ordered that the fine so realised shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. Mr. Uday Kant Thakur, learned counsel, for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial court and the appellate court has failed to appreciate that the lands in question was not in possession of the complainant; that as per Exbt. -A the Assistant Settlement Officer, has held that Sita Muni Soren was not married in Gharjamai form and she is not entitled to share in the property. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the occurrence had been taken place on 22.11.1996 whereas the complaint was filed on 03.03.1997 and there is no plausible explanation for the delay of three and half months. It is argued that bonafide land dispute is a good defence against the prosecution in a case of theft as both the parties are claiming the land. It is also argued that the paddy was sown and grown by the petitioners who were in possession of the land. On the above grounds, it has been urged that the impugned order and judgment is not sustainable in law or on facts and is fit to be set aside. 3. Mr. J. P. Jha, learned senior counsel, while countering the arguments has submitted that there is concurrent findings by the trial court and appellant court that the paddy was sown and grown by the complainant and the land was in possession of the complainant. That in view of the concurrent findings there is no question of law involved neither there is any error apparent regarding the facts on record. That in view of the concurrent findings there is no question of law involved neither there is any error apparent regarding the facts on record. It has been argued that the petitioners have not produced any chit or paper to prove that they were in possession of the lands of Plot Nos.990, 995, 1012 and 3163 in Jamabandi No.19 of village Dhenukata, P.S. Poraiyahat. Thus the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar No.4, learned A.P.P has supported the contention advanced on behalf of O.P. No.02. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order as well as the lower court records. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant / Sita Muni Soren was not married in Gharjamai form accordingly after the death of her father the land fell in the share of the petitioners who came into the possession over the land is not supported by any documents. On the contrary Exbt.-3 which is an agreement of compromise entered into between the complainant and the petitioners shows that both the parties had agreed on 20.07.1996 that they would not disturb the possession with respect to the lands which was in the share of each other. 6. The trial court as well as the appellate court have also considered the rent receipt which have been filed as Exbt. -2/1 and evidence of witnesses namely, P.W. -1, Betka Murmu, P.W. -2, Sanat Tudu, P.W. -3 – Bhaiya Ram Marandi, P.W. -4, Sita Muni Soren, the complainant, P.W. 5, Anil Kumar Mandal, P.W. -6, Bhim Mandal, P.W. -7, Sore Niwas Singh, I.O. and P.W. -8 a formal witness. The petitioners had examined one Babloo Hembrom, D.W. and so far as Exbt. -A is concerned i.e. related to the adjudication in the matter whether the complainant was married in a Gharjamai form. It is evident from Exbt. -A wherein it was held that the father of the complainant has share of two aanas in the ancestral land and the land was not partitioned by metes and bounds, and the parties can file proper suit in the said matter. Apparently Exbt. -A does not support the case of the defence that they were in possession of the lands. 7. Apparently Exbt. -A does not support the case of the defence that they were in possession of the lands. 7. The petitioners have not denied the execution of the Exbt.-3 whereby they admitted that both the parties would respect the respective possession of the lands which fell in the share of the parties. The trial court and the appellate court have discussed the evidence of witnesses who have categorically stated that the paddy was sown and grown by the complainant and the petitioners had cut and removed the paddy. No material contradiction could be drawn in the testimony in the cross-examination. The appellate court has also held that the complainant had approached the police but the police did not take any action. That since the husband of the complainant was out of the station accordingly after his return the complaint was lodged, thus the delay was reasonably explained. 8. In view of the evidence and discussion made above, this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same stands affirmed. In the result, the revision is, hereby, dismissed.