Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1890 (JHR)

Girija Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 9. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2000 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra whereby and where-under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.08.2000 passed in G.R. Case No. 501 of 1997 convicting the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months respectively has been set aside. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 08.11.1997 at about 10:00 am all the accused persons variously armed and by forming an unlawful assembly had cut the paddy crops standing over area 0.71 acres out of Plot No. 371, 748 and 648 under Khata No. 78 situated in Mauza Lamboiya. It is alleged that when the informant protested the accused started assaulting at which the informant fled away. It has been stated that the land belongs to the informant and he is in physical possession of the same. It has been alleged that the accused persons had cut paddy crops worth Rs. 2,000/-. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Itkhori P.S. Case No. 149 of 1997 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken and charge was framed trial proceeded. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 09.08.2000 had convicted the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. The opposite party nos. 2 to 9 preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2000 which was allowed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra vide judgment dated 23.06.2005. 5. In course of trial five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Girja Pandey, is the informant and the petitioner of the present case. This witness had stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to his field to look after the paddy when he saw the accused persons cutting the paddy. 5. In course of trial five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Girja Pandey, is the informant and the petitioner of the present case. This witness had stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to his field to look after the paddy when he saw the accused persons cutting the paddy. This witness had protested but the accused persons threatened to assault him. He has further stated that the accused had cut paddy worth Rs. 2,000/-. 7. P.W.-2, Jaldhari Mochi, is an eye-witness to the occurrence who had seen the accused persons cutting paddy and when the informant protested the accused persons threatened the informant to assault which resulted in the informant fleeing away. 8. P.W.-3, Digamber Pandey, is the son of the informant who had seen the accused persons cutting paddy. This witness had stated that he and his father fled away when they were threatened by the accused persons. He has further deposed that the accused persons had cut paddy in 0.71 decimals of land. 9. P.W.-4, Kameshwar Nath Singh, was the Investigating Officer who had visited the place of occurrence and took the statement of the witnesses and finding the allegations to be true had submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party nos. 2 to 9. 10. P.W.-5, Surya Prasad Singh, is a formal witness. 11. The defence has examined two witnesses namely D.W.-1, Badrinath Sharma and D.W.-2, Khudnath Mahto who had proved some documents. Both these witnesses are formal in nature. 12. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court had placed undue reliance upon the Exhibits on behalf of the defence. It has been stated that the petitioner had produced documents to show that he was the owner of the land and the witnesses have also disclosed about the accused persons forcibly cutting paddy from the field of the petitioner. 13. Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 to 9, has disputed the aforesaid facts and had stated that a suit was filed which was decreed in favour of Pandit Gobardhan Sharma and after taking delivery of possession he had sold the land to the opposite party no. 5 as well as to Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi who are related with the accused persons. 2 to 9, has disputed the aforesaid facts and had stated that a suit was filed which was decreed in favour of Pandit Gobardhan Sharma and after taking delivery of possession he had sold the land to the opposite party no. 5 as well as to Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi who are related with the accused persons. It has been stated that the documentary evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt about the ownership of the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 over the land in question which fact has been rightly appreciated by the learned appellate court and, therefore, no interference is necessitated in the judgment passed by the learned appellate court. 14. The documents which have been exhibited on behalf of the defence reveal that Mahadeo Pandey acting as guardian of the informant had returned the gifts and thereafter Mosommat Saro Kumari sold the land to Pandit Gobardhan Sharma by a registered deed dated 09.09.1948. Pandit Gobardhan Sharma had filed T. S. No. 165 of 1949 against the petitioner for declaration of the gift of deed (Exhibit-A/1 and A/2) as void and inoperative and also for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.10.1953 (Exhibit-F) against which a first appeal was preferred which was decreed in favour of Pandit Gobardhan Sharma and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.07.1956 (Exhibit-G). The decree passed in T.S. No. 165 of 1949 was put to execution in Execution Case No. 156 of 1955 and although several objections were made by the petitioner by filing various miscellaneous applications but ultimately delivery of possession was given to Pandit Gobardhan Sharma. Exhibit-A/3 reveals that some of the lands including the disputed plots were sold by Pandit Gobardhan Sharma to the opposite party no. 5 as also to some relatives of the accused persons. Thus the land in question was validly purchased from the vender of the accused Pandit Gobardhan Sharma who had been given delivery of possession after execution of the decree drawn in his favour. The documents which have been produced by the petitioner does not inspire confidence as the suit which has been filed by the petitioner against Pnadit Gobardhan Sharma did not describe the land. 15. The documents which have been produced by the petitioner does not inspire confidence as the suit which has been filed by the petitioner against Pnadit Gobardhan Sharma did not describe the land. 15. In view of the overwhelming documentary evidence brought on record by the defence which proved the right, title and ownership of the land in which paddy was allegedly cut and taken away, the leaned appellate court had rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.