Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 50 (JHR)

Mangu Bandua v. State of Bihar

2015-01-12

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.11.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby conviction and order dated 04.01.1997 passed in T.R. Case No. 116 of 1997 was confirmed and the petitioners were directed to be released under provision of Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing bond of Rs. 3,000/-for maintaining peace and good behavior for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of Durga Bandua (P.W.-5), the informant, is that several cases were pending in the court below in respect to the land between him and the petitioners, Mangu Bandua, Mathura Bandua, Turam Bandua and Singrai Bandua. That the said cases were decided in favour of the other side and delivery of possession was also affected in respect of the land and after D/P he has no concern with the said land. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 23rd -24th October, 1994, all the petitioners armed with deadly weapons forcibly harvested the paddy crops standing on Plot Nos. 704, 706, 701, 752 and 464 under the Khata No. 40, which were in his exclusive possession. That the said occurrence was seen by Arjun Bandua, Turam Bandua(P.W.-4) and Manki Kudada (P.W.-3) and on the basis of the fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was registered, under Sections 143, 149, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 108 of 1994. Accordingly the petitioners had faced the trial for the charges under the aforesaid sections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the informant are agnates and they are descendants of the recorded tenant; that it would appear from the judgment impugned that P.W.-4 has stated that the P.O. land is in the possession of the petitioners. It is contended that there is prior enmity between the parties and several cases have been going on; that allegation is regarding forcibly harvesting of the crops from the paddy field. It has been urged that the informant has admitted that earlier there was litigation with respect to the said land; that the informant has stated that he had seen the incident but out of fear he did not say anything and on the next date he had gone to village-Mundu but he was out of station. It has been urged that the informant has admitted that earlier there was litigation with respect to the said land; that the informant has stated that he had seen the incident but out of fear he did not say anything and on the next date he had gone to village-Mundu but he was out of station. Accordingly, the informant lodged the case after delay of one day. That there is bonafide land dispute and the accused persons are also claiming the land, hence, the trial court and the appellant court without appreciating the fact has wrongly convicted the petitioners under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, has submitted that the informant has admitted the land dispute between the parties but the petitioners had harvested the crops from Plot Nos. 704, 706, 701, 752 and 464 measuring around 2 ½ bighas of Khata No. 40 and the rent receipts of the said land were being issued in favour of the informant, which would be evident from Ext. 5 to 5/6; that the khatiyan which has been filed as Ext.-6 would show that the land was not in possession of the petitioners. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the materials on record. It is admitted case by the informant that there are several litigations going on between the parties and the informant has testified in his cross-examination that the lands situated in village Tendrai are recorded jointly in his and the petitioners’ name but the land of Khata No. 40 was not in joint names. The petitioners have not filed any documents in support of the claim that the said land was in their joint possession. In fact the certified copy of Khatian and rent receipts, Exts.-5 to 5/6 and Ext.-6 show that the P.O. land belonged to the informant (P.W.-5). P.Ws.-3 and 4 namely Manki Kudada and Turam Banra have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety in the judgment and order dated 10.11.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions’s Judge, Chaibasa. P.Ws.-3 and 4 namely Manki Kudada and Turam Banra have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety in the judgment and order dated 10.11.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions’s Judge, Chaibasa. However, since the case is of the year 1998 and the petitioners have faced the trial and tribulations for more than two decades, and no adverse report regarding the conduct of the petitioners has been brought on record, the sentence of execution of bond under the Probation of offenders Act is modified, accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on admonition. 6. With the aforesaid modification of sentence, this revision application stands disposed of.