JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1997 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.07.1997 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhupur in PCR Case No. 461 of 1991 by which the petitioners had been held guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 379 and 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to maximum period of one year R.I. has been affirmed by modifying the sentence by giving benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act variously to the petitioners. 3. The prosecution case as would arrive from the complaint petition is that the accused persons had assembled near the place of occurrence where the complainant had cultivated paddy crops. It is alleged that on 20.11.1991, the accused persons who were variously armed had started harvesting paddy and in spite of resistance being made by the complainant and his sons, the accused persons had forcibly taken away the paddy worth Rs. 700/-. It is also alleged that there is land dispute between the parties which was decided in favour of the complainant. Based on the aforesaid allegations PCR Case No. 461 of 1991 was instituted. After conducting inquiry, cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 147, 148 and 379 of I.P.C. and after the case was transferred to the court of SDJM, Madhupur at Deoghar, charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. Since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were convicted under Section 147, 148 & 379 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to various terms. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 23.09.2002 by modifying the sentence by giving benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 23.09.2002 by modifying the sentence by giving benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly there was land dispute existing between the parties and the ownership of the land from where allegedly the paddy crops was harvested has not been proved to be under the title of the complainant. It has further been submitted that the evidence of DW 1 – Pallavi Devya has not been properly appreciated as she had categorically stated that the complainant did not have possession of the land in question. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of DW 1 has been corroborated by the evidence of DW 2 and 3. It has also been stated that P.W. 4 has revealed that no cultivation was made by the complainant in the relevant year. It has been stated that since the ownership of the land could not be established by the complainant, the learned courts below could not have convicted the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148 & 379 of I.P.C. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the evidence of the witnesses during trial. The complainant has examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of his case. C.W. 1 – Subal Chandra Singh has stated that when he was going towards his field he had seen accused persons forcibly cutting paddy from the land of the complainant. This witness has also stated that the accused persons have taken away paddy worth Rs. 700/- and all were variously armed. C.W. 2 – Laxmi Rana has deposed that while he was cutting paddy in his own field, he had heard shouting and thereafter he had seen the accused persons variously armed cutting paddy and ultimately they took away paddy worth Rs. 700/-. C.W. 3 – Ranjit Rana has stated on similar terms to what has been stated by C.W. 1 & 2. C.W. 4 Kamdeo Rana has supported the prosecution case. 700/-. C.W. 3 – Ranjit Rana has stated on similar terms to what has been stated by C.W. 1 & 2. C.W. 4 Kamdeo Rana has supported the prosecution case. C.W. 5 – Shibu Rana is the son of the complainant who has stated that at the time of the incident, he was cutting paddy in the nearby field when 14 accused persons variously armed had come to the field and had tried to cut paddy which was opposed by this witness as well as by his father. He has further deposed that paddy worth Rs. 700/-was forcibly cut by the accused persons and were taken away. C.W. 6 – Jamadar Rana is the complainant of the present case who has stated that while he and his sons C.W. 5 were cutting paddy, the accused persons variously armed had forcibly cut paddy in spite of resistance made by this witness as well as C.W. 5. and had taken away paddy worth Rs. 700/-. This witness has stated that during the year when the incident had happened, he had sowed paddy. He has further stated that previously also cases were instituted before the SDO in which it was ordered that he has right title and ownership of the land. He has also stated that the land was recorded in the name of his grand father Harkhu Rana who had 2 sons – Nilu and Mahru. Nilu had 3 sons namely, Jamadar, Udho and Mahadeo apart from the complainant who all are separate in mess. This witness has deposed that the grand father of the complainant and Paro are gotias and Paro had a son namely, Dhani Rana who had married Pallavi Devya (DW 1). He has further stated that there were cases instituted, both criminal and civil between him and Pallavi Devya. 7. The defence has examined as many as 3 witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1 – Pallavi Devya has stated that the complainant is the son of his brother-in-law (Bhaisur). She claims to have cultivated the land in question. This witness has further stated that the complainant does not have any possession of the land in question. D.W. 2 – Andu Manjhi has stated that the land in question is cultivated by Pallavi Devya. D.W. 3 – Pavrit Poddar has stated that paddy was sowed by Pallavi Devya. She claims to have cultivated the land in question. This witness has further stated that the complainant does not have any possession of the land in question. D.W. 2 – Andu Manjhi has stated that the land in question is cultivated by Pallavi Devya. D.W. 3 – Pavrit Poddar has stated that paddy was sowed by Pallavi Devya. This witness has tried to project that the complainant does not have any concern with the land in question. The defence has mostly relied upon the evidence of D.W. 1 – Pallavi Devya who claims that on the relevant time, she had cultivated the land in question. Although C.W. 4 has stated that no cultivation was done by the complainant in the relevant year, but it would be evident from the deposition of C.W. 6, the complainant as well as from the exhibits which were brought on record that the same itself proves that the complainant had a title over the land in question. The complainant had brought on record the certified copy of the R.E. Case No. 66 of 1978-79 of the SDO, Deoghar, certified copy of the judgment passed in T. R. No. 341 of 1994, certified copy of the order dated 17.02.1986 passed in R. E. Case No. 66 of 1978-79 and photo copy of the certified copy of the order dated 09.07.1987 passed in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 1985-86 of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 8. The complainant had sufficiently proved through oral testimony as well as documentary evidence that he had sowed paddy in the land in question and the petitioners being the aggressors had forcibly cut paddy and also taken away paddy worth Rs. 700/-. The incident with respect to forcibly cutting of paddy has been corroborated by the evidence of C.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. Once it is established that the complainant had the right over the land in question, the subsequent question of crossing and forcibly cutting of paddy by the petitioners gains significance in view of the consistency of evidence of all the complainant – witnesses. The defence has failed to bring on record any document to show that the field where paddy was sowed actually belonged to the members of the defence or to Pallavi Devya who claims that she cultivates the land in question. The defence has failed to bring on record any document to show that the field where paddy was sowed actually belonged to the members of the defence or to Pallavi Devya who claims that she cultivates the land in question. It is not in doubt that dispute is in existence between both the parties which would be apparent from the institution of several civil and criminal cases between them. 9. The learned courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the allegation made by the complainant has been proved by him and has thereafter convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 148 & 379 of the I.P.C. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court are hereby sustained. 10. So far as the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, the learned appellate court has rightly on consideration of the facts on record had given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. There being no cause to interfere in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.