Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1724 (JHR)

Sudarshan Pradhan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-10-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Gupta, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 37C of 1998 whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saraikella on 08.07.1998 in C/1 Case No. No. 16 of 1993 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to various terms has been affirmed albeit same modification in the sentence. 3. The allegation made in the complaint petition is that the land of Khata No. 79 of Mouza Rupanachana was recorded in the name of late Birindaban Pradhan. It has been stated that after his death his three sons partitioned the land and came in exclusive possession of their respective shares. It has been alleged that one of the sons namely Balram Pradhan sold his exclusive share measuring 12 decimals of land of Plot No. 733 to complainant on payment of valid consideration amount vide sale deed dated 15.04.1991. The complainant got his name mutated and started paying rent to the State. The complainant also started growing rabi crop and hutment was constructed to keep a watch on the land. It is alleged that on 12.04.1993 all the accused persons committed criminal trespass by demolishing the hutment with a view to dispossess the complainant. It has also been alleged that they have taken away some articles worth Rs. 400/-. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation C/1 Case No. 16 of 1993 was instituted. Upon conducting an enquiry by examining the complainant under solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. 6. P.W.-1, Niranjan Sardar, had disclosed that the land previously belonged to Balram Pradhan who after partition had sold the land to the complainant in the year 1991. He had further disclosed that the complainant came in exclusive possession of the land in question. 5. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. 6. P.W.-1, Niranjan Sardar, had disclosed that the land previously belonged to Balram Pradhan who after partition had sold the land to the complainant in the year 1991. He had further disclosed that the complainant came in exclusive possession of the land in question. He had further stated that on 12.04.1993 trespass was committed by the accused and after demolishing the hutment several articles were taken away. 7. P.W.-2, Ramesh Poddar, claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence who had also supported the prosecution case. 8. P.W.-3, Ananda Sardar, had also supported the prosecution case. This witness however was not cross-examined by the defence. 9. P.W.-4, Baleshwar Munda, is the complainant who had stated about the purchase of the land from Balram Pradhan after which he came in exclusive possession of the same and started cultivating the land. This witness had also deposed that on the fateful day the accused persons had trespassed into his land and had also taken away various articles. 10. Since the complainant has been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts the learned trial court vide judgment dated 08.07.1998 convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment one month, nine months and nine months respectively. 11. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 37C of 1998 which however was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella upholding the judgment of conviction while modifying the sentence under Sections 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code to three months each. 12. It has been stated by Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the dispute between both the parties is purely civil in nature. It has been stated that the land in question was in the joint possession of Balram Pradhan and the petitioners and, therefore, Balram Pradhan was not entitled to sell a portion of the land measuring 12 decimals. Learned counsel further submits that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 was initiated with respect to the same land which however was dropped. Learned counsel further submits that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 was initiated with respect to the same land which however was dropped. It has thus been stated that since the petitioners claims the land in question, no offence of trespass or theft is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, they deserve acquittal from the criminal case. 13. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 14. Although no one appears on behalf of the complainant but before the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court the complainant had stated about two sale deeds executed by Balram Pradhan and Sudershan Pradhan (petitioner no. 1) which mentions about the amicable partition amongst the sons of late Birindaban Pradhan. The said stand of the complainant was not taken into consideration by the learned courts below and rightly so as the sale deeds which were referred to by the complainant were never exhibited. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant had come in exclusive possession of the land in question pursuant to execution of sale deed by Balram Pradhan in favour of the complainant. 15. On dissection of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides the dispute seems to be with respect to a partition of land measuring 12 decimals which have been claimed by both the sides to be in their possession. The complainant had produced the sale deed by which Balram Pradhan had sold 12 decimals of land out of his own share to the complainant by registered sale deed which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The complainant after coming in exclusive possession over the land had got the land mutated in his favour for which the Mutation Slip has also been exhibited and marked as Exhibit-3. The rent receipts have also been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. The complainant thus was well equipped to prove his exclusive possession over the land in question and although the petitioners have stated about the joint possession of the property but nothing has been produced to substantiate such claim. The petitioners have merely relied upon an order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 which does not entitle the petitioners in getting the benefit of doubt. The petitioners have merely relied upon an order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 which does not entitle the petitioners in getting the benefit of doubt. The subsequent events of trespassing into the land of the complainant and taking away the articles have been conclusively proved by the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. The learned trial court had thus on proper appreciation of the materials available on record convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court had rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Thus the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 16. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, the petitioners seems to be facing the rigors of the criminal prosecution since 1993. The offence also relates to taking away of articles worth Rs. 400/-. The petitioners have also remained for sometime in custody out of a maximum sentence of three months of simple imprisonment. 17. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 18. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.