Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1738 (JHR)

Jenga Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti in Complaint Case No. 01 of 1999 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed albeit modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioners. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related and interested witnesses. Learned counsel submits that there are also contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. It has also been stated that the complainant had failed to prove that the plot of land in which the dispute is alleged to have taken place belongs to him. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the period of sentence be suitably modified considering the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1998. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. A complaint case was instituted in which it is alleged that the accused persons had illegally harvested crop of Surguja with the help of 30 to 40 armed persons and when the complainant tried to stopped them they had forcibly harvested and took away the harvested crop to their home. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No. 01 of 1999 was instituted. 7. So far as the ground of delay which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same has actually been explained by the complainant inasmuch as on refusal by the police to register a First Information Report he had approached the Court but because of the ensuing winter vacation he could not file the complaint case and only after the Court reopened the complaint case was filed. The delay, therefore, has sufficiently been explained by the complainant. 8. The delay, therefore, has sufficiently been explained by the complainant. 8. The complainant in course of trial had examined as many as five witnesses whereas the defence has examined two witness in support of its case. 9. PW1, Sukhram Pahan, has stated that on 22.12.1998 the accused persons along with 30 to 40 other persons had harvested the Surguja crop of the complainant. This witness had stated that the accused persons were variously armed. It has further been stated that the complainant as well as the other persons had forbid the accused persons to cut the crop but they did not obey and continued with taking away the paddy crops. He has further given the details of the land along with the khata number and plot number as well as the rent receipt which has been marked as Exhibit-1. 10. PW2, Govind Pahan, PW3, Kolay Pahan and PW4, Maluwa Pahan have all supported the case of the complainant with respect to the ownership of the land in question and the forcible cutting of paddy crop by the accused persons. 11. PW5, Poseya Devi, the complainant has stated that on 22.12.1998 the accused persons with the help of 30 to 40 other persons had harvested the crop of Surguja and taken it away in spite of protest made by her as well as other witnesses. This witness had stated that the land in which Surguja crop was cultivated belonged to Morga Munda which was inherited by the complainant and since then it was in cultivable possession of the complainant. 12. The defence had examined two witnesses DW1, Raswal Munda and DW2, Gola Munda. 13. DW1, Raswal Munda, has stated that he does not know the complainant and the house and property of Morga Munda were taken away by the agnates. 14. DW2, Sola Munda, has stated that he knew Morga Munda from childhood who had died issueless and the accused persons had come in possession of the land. 15. The complainant in course of trial had brought on record the rent receipt marked as Exhibit-1 supported by the order of S.D.J.M., Khunti under Section 144, CrPC which is marked as Exhibit-2 as also the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi dated 16.01.1980 marked as Exhibit-3. 16. 15. The complainant in course of trial had brought on record the rent receipt marked as Exhibit-1 supported by the order of S.D.J.M., Khunti under Section 144, CrPC which is marked as Exhibit-2 as also the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi dated 16.01.1980 marked as Exhibit-3. 16. The defence save and except two witnesses did not produce any document to support the contention that the plot of land in question belonged to them. The complainant witnesses have fully supported the case of the complainant with respect to her ownership over the said plot of land as also the illegal act of the petitioners in forcible harvesting and cutting away Surguja crop from the said plot of land. The documentary evidence leads credence to the assertion of the complainant with respect to the ownership of the land in question and on consideration of the said fact the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 17. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court the same is, hereby, sustained. 18. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1998. The petitioners have also remained for sometimes in custody. On consideration of the aforesaid fact the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 19. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.