Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 114 (JHR)

Md. Nezam v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-16

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Rajmahal, in S.C. Case No. 160 of 1988, whereby the private respondents have been acquitted of the charges under sections 379, 149, 307, 325 of the Indian Penal Code for which they had faced the trial. 3. The impugned Judgment shows that this is purely a case of land dispute between the parties. The prosecution side claiming the title and possession over the land were ploughing the land which was objected by the defence side and the occurrence had taken place in which the persons from the prosecution side had been assaulted and injured. 4. The defence is the denial of charge and according to the defence case the land belong to the defence side and the prosecution side were the aggressors, due to which the occurrence had taken place in which persons from both the sides were injured. 5. Though the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but it is apparent from the impugned Judgment that the defence has proved several documents claiming the title and possession over the land, whereas the prosecution had not produced any document in support of the claim, that the land belonged to them. The defence has proved the injury report showing that the one person of the defence side had also been injured. The prosecution had not examined the I.O., of the case, and the Court below has held that this has caused serious prejudice to the defence. Accordingly, the accused were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the witnesses have supported the case and have proved the fact that the prosecution side were assaulted and injured by the defence side and accordingly, the private respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the offences charged 7. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents have submitted that this is purely a case of land dispute between the parties in which the occurrence had taken place and persons from both the sides were injured. Though the prosecution side is claiming title and possession over the land in dispute, but they did not prove any document in support of their case, whereas the defence proved sufficient documents claiming title and possession over the land in dispute. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the Court below has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused private respondents and has acquitted them of the charge. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that this is purely a case of land dispute between the parties and even though the prosecution claims possession and title over the land in dispute, but they have not proved any document in support of their case, whereas the defence side has proved documents in support of their claim of title and possession over the land in dispute. The prosecution had not even examined the I.O., of the case, and the Court below has held that this has caused serious prejudice to the defence. 9. In our considered view even though the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but the fact remains that the private respondents had been able to make out a prima facie case of exercise of the right of private defence of the property and accordingly, they have rightly been given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted of the charges. We do not see any reason for any interference in the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.