Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1789 (JHR)

Sukhdeo Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Rajlaxmi Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2005 passed by the learned Nth Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.J), Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 175/1986/65/2004, whereby and where under the order dated 12.8.1986 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 273/1983, Trial Case No. 781/1986, convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed and the sentence of• three years imposed by the learned trial Court had been reduced and the petitioners have been released by giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been a delay of three days in filing the complaint petition and no reasons have been assigned with respect to the said delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a previous dispute with respect to the land in question and in fact litigations were going on between both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainant has failed to assert his ownership over the plot of land in which the incident is alleged to have taken place and in such circumstances, therefore, the petitioners deserves acquittal in the criminal case. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears from the allegations made in the complaint petition that Plot No. 347, area 3 Bighas, 7 Kathas and 10 Dhurs appertaining to Jamabandi No. 16 of Mouza Tetaria. village Saraiyahat, District Dumka stands recorded in the name of the father of complainant namely Man Mohan Prasad and his uncle Chandra Bhushan Lal It has been submitted that one Govind Mahto (PW 1) was working as a caretaker looking after the cultivation of the complainant. Allegation has been leveled that the complainant had grown paddy crops over Plot No. 347 area 2 bighas and on 14.11.1983 the accused persons along with other laborers had forcibly harvested the paddy crops worth Rs. 600/- in spite of the protest made by the caretaker of the complainant and others. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegations P.C.R. Case No. 273/1983 was instituted. 600/- in spite of the protest made by the caretaker of the complainant and others. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegations P.C.R. Case No. 273/1983 was instituted. After conducting an inquiry cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12.08.1986 had convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 143 of the IPC. 7. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 175/1986/65/2004, which however was dismissed on 09.08.2005 affirming the judgment of conviction but reducing the sentence by releasing the petitioners giving benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. In course of trial the complainant had examined as many as five witnesses in support of his case. PW 1 Govind Mahto was the caretaker of the complainant and in whose presence it is alleged that the accused persons had cut the paddy crops and had taken it away. This witness had supported the prosecution case and had stated that although a protest was made by him but the accused persons did not heed to the said protest and had forcibly taken away the paddy crops. PW 2 Dubraj Singh has stated that a protest was made by PW 1 when the accused persons were cutting paddy crops but they had taken away paddy crops worth Rs. 500/- PW 3 Arun Kumar Sinha is the complainant who has supported his case and has further stated that the land in question stood recorded. in the name of his father in terms of the Gantzar settlement. This witness has also proved several rent receipts which has been marked as Exhibits 1 to 1/6. PW 4 Nim Chand Singh has also supported the case of the complainant with respect to forcible cutting away of paddy by the accused persons. PW 5 Pyare Singh has also stated on similar lines to what has been stated by the other witnesses. 9. The complainant as well as the defence had exhibited various documents in support of their contention that the land in question actually belongs to them. PW 5 Pyare Singh has also stated on similar lines to what has been stated by the other witnesses. 9. The complainant as well as the defence had exhibited various documents in support of their contention that the land in question actually belongs to them. The certified copy of the Gantzar settlement of village Tetaria in respect of Jamabandi No. 16 has been brought on record by the complainant which has been marked as Exhibit 2 from which it appears that the land in which paddy crops were grown and which was forcibly cut and taken away' by the accused persons stood recorded in tine name of the father and uncle of the complainant. Although the defence had filed several documents in support of their contention but in view of the overwhelming evidence of the complainant with respect to Exhibit-2 and the title of the complainant having been established beyond all reasonable having doubt the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court had come to a conclusion that the land in question belongs to the complainant. So far as the forcible cutting away of paddy crops is concerned PW 1 Govind Mahto the caretaker had categorically stated about the involvement of the-petitioners in spite of protest having been made by him. This version of PW 1 has been supported by the complainant PW 3 as well as by the other witnesses. 10. Since the complainant had been able to prove his case beyond. all reasonable doubt the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect the judgment of conviction as also. the period of sentence modified by the learned appellate Court, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.