Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 328 (JHR)

Fauda Barla v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-14

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – No one appears for the petitioners. However, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.4.2000, passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 90/1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd class, Khunti in C Case No. 88/95 dated 10.5.1999, has been dismissed. 3. A complaint case was instituted by one Chano Barla, in which it was alleged that paddy was grown by him over plot no. 67, area 43 decimals of khata no. 56 and plot no. 60, area 39 decimals of khata no. 16. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased the said land from one Ladura Munda and got it settled by the State of Bihar. Allegation has been levelled that on 22.11.1995, petitioners had forcibly harvested the paddy grown over the aforesaid lands and had taken away 20 munds paddy worth Rs. 1500/-. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted, pursuant to which, cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 147 and 379 of I.P.C. Trial court after considering the materials had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 379 of I.P.C. and had sentenced them to undergo S.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 9 months respectively. Petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 90 of 1999, which, however was dismissed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 28.4.2000. 5. The complainant in course of trial has examined himself as P.W-3. Birsa Munda (P.W-1) and Birbal Munda ( P.W-2) are the witnesses on the point of harvesting paddy and growing of paddy in the land in question. Sale deed with respect to land in question was proved by P.W-4-Sheonath Swansi and rent receipts were proved by P.W-5-Bishun Kachhap. Apart from the oral evidence, documentary evidences were also brought on record by the complainant to substantiate his contention that the land was purchased by his father and he was harvesting paddy being rightful owner of the land in question. 6. It appears that defence had also examined some of the witnesses including the petitioner no. Apart from the oral evidence, documentary evidences were also brought on record by the complainant to substantiate his contention that the land was purchased by his father and he was harvesting paddy being rightful owner of the land in question. 6. It appears that defence had also examined some of the witnesses including the petitioner no. 3, who was examined as D.W-3, who had clearly stated that he has harvested the paddy but however no documentary evidence was produced by the defence to show the title over the land in question. One of the important aspects, which the learned trial court had considered while convicting the petitioners was the fact that in the sale deed, in which the complainant had purchased the land from Ladura Munda, one of the accused Chamar Singh Munda as well as the petitioner no. 3-Sagar Barla had put their signature over the sale deed as witnesses. The circumstances would thus go to show that the defence had accepted the version that the complainant had purchased the land from Ladura Munda and the defence could not have turned hostile with respect to their admission of being witnesses in the sale deed. The complainant had consistently said that he was cultivating the land being the rightful owner of the said land. The defence had failed to produce any paper in support of their contention that they were cultivating the land being rightful owner. Trial court on proper appreciation had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. 7. There being no illegality in the impugned judgment, conviction recorded against the petitioners is hereby affirmed. 8. However, as regards the sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1995. Petitioners have remained in custody for sometime. The dispute was with respect to the ownership of the land. Such circumstances would definitely entitle the petitioners to reduction in the sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.