Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1432 (JHR)

Krishna Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - None appears for the petitioners. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP is present. As the matter is pending since the year 2005, the same is being disposed of on the basis of the materials available on record. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 21.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, whereby and where-under the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.05.2005 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. Case No. 360/1999 (Trial No. 150 of 2003), by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and have been given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, has been affirmed. 3. It appears from the prosecution report that the informant was in possession of the land bearing Plot No. 763 under Lohardaga Municipality by virtue of delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 4/85 since 1999. It has been stated that he had constructed boundary wall and the allegation has been made that on 11.12.1999, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly, by hurling, abusing and threatening the informant''s son had demolished the boundary wall of the said land. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 124 of 1999 was instituted against the accused persons in which charge sheet was submitted after completion of the investigation and after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. 5. The prosecution, in course of trial, has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 appear to be circumstantial witness to the occurrence, as neither they were present nor they have seen the occurrence. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 & 9. P.W.7-Kishori Lal Sao is the informant of the case, who has stated that there was a Title Suit No. 302 of 1986, regarding his land in question, in which judgment was given in his favour. He has further stated that he got delivery of possession by the order of the competent court. P.W. 8-Dwarika Nath Jha, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who had inspected the place of occurrence and had stated that the wall was found demolished. He has further stated that he got delivery of possession by the order of the competent court. P.W. 8-Dwarika Nath Jha, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who had inspected the place of occurrence and had stated that the wall was found demolished. This witness had taken the statement of other witnesses and has submitted the charge sheet in this case. P.W.9-Mathura Mahto is a circumstantial witness, who has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence and found that the boundary wall was demolished. P.W.5-Shambhu Prasad is the son of the informant, who has stated that all the accused, variously armed, had come to Plot No. 763 and demolished the wall of the plot approx 250" wide and and 6" height. This witness has stated that he had narrated the incident to his father next morning and thereafter, first information report was instituted. 6. Thus, the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8. It is consistent case of the prosecution that delivery of possession of the subject matter of the dispute was given to the informant-P.W.7 and the boundary wall was constructed, which, however, on the date of incident was demolished by the petitioners. Thus, the prosecution had been able to establish its case against the accused persons under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioners under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, but directed to execute bond under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned appellate court has also affirmed the judgment of conviction based upon the materials available on record passed by learned trial court. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioners, this application fails, the same is accordingly, dismissed.