ORDER : I.A. No. 4390/2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the prayer for condonation of delay of 60 days in preferring the instant petition made through I.A. No. 4390/2014. 2. For the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application, delay is condoned. I.A. stands disposed of. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner is seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2009, whereunder the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 18 have been acquitted of the charges for the offences under sections 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Sessions Judge, Godda vide impugned judgment dated 17.02.2011. 5. Petitioner instituted the complaint bearing P.C.R. No. 670/2002 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, inter-alia alleging that the land under Mouza Baratwara No. 618 P.S. Mahagma district Godda under Jamabandi No. 35 having an area of 03 bighs 16 kattha 04 dhoor, stood recorded in the name of Bhutha Dhangar, father-in-law of the complainant. She was peacefully cultivating the land since the death of the ancestor and in the year 2002 also, she planted paddy in the land which was ripe. On 26.11.2002 between 9.00 am to 3.00 pm, accused formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons laathi, bhala, garasa, pistol, kachiya, etc. and cut the paddy and took them to their house. When stopped by the complainant and other witnesses, they abused and threatened to murder them. About 30 maunds of paddy worth Rs. 6,000/- were taken away by the accused. Since no complaint was registered by the police despite information, she took the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Godda, but could not get his audience. Thereafter, complaint was filed on 30.11.2002 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. 6. After solemn affirmation and inquiry under section 192 of the Cr.PC, summons were issued against the accused persons. On their appearance, charges under sections 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were read over to them and explained as well, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Complainant examined six witnesses and also proved the following documents. Ext.-1 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi no. 32 Ext.-2 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi no. 7. Complainant examined six witnesses and also proved the following documents. Ext.-1 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi no. 32 Ext.-2 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi no. 35 Ext.-3 Residential Certificate of Rama Oraon issued by Circle Officer, Mahagma Ext.-4 Caste Certificate of Rama Oraon issued by Circle Officer, Mahagma Ext.-5 Family list of complainant issued by Circle Officer, Mahagma Ext.-6 Certified copy of Khatiyan Ext.-7 Proceeding of Oraon Community taken place on 21.07.2002 Ext.-8 Order passed by Oraon Community on 21.07.2002 Ext.-9 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi No. 53/35. 8. Accused also proved the following documents: Ext.-A Petition filed by the complainant before the Oraon Community on 15.07.2002 Ext.-B Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi No. 32 Ext.-C Certified copy of Police Report vide Cr. Misc. No. 914/02 Ext.-D Carbon copy of notice under section 144 issued by S.D.M., Godda in Cr. Misc. Case No. 403/99 Ext.-E Certified copy of Khatiyan of Jamabandi No. 35 Ext.-F Family list of accused persons. However, accused did not adduce any witness in their defence. Out of six witnesses examined by the complainant, CW-1 Changuri Oraon had stated about cutting of paddy of the complainant and its taking away by the accused who were said to be armed with Bhala, Lathi, Farsa, Kachiya, etc. He also stated about the amount of paddy and its value as Rs. 6,000/-. He had further stated that accused were agnates of the complainant. Complainant is the paternal aunt of CW-1 who in his cross-examination, had stated that the accused had share in the land of that jamabandi and that quarrel was going on between them since 5-6 years. CW-2 Shiv Dayal Oraon also deposed in support of the complainant’s case and stated that the accused are her agnates. Quarrel between them was going on for not giving share to the complainant from the land at Bhuju Chak. He further stated that the accused no. 1 Ramkhelawan Oraon and accused no. 3 Jhaksu oraon and others have transplanted the paddy. Since CW-3 was not produced for cross-examination, his deposition was expunged. CW-4 had supported the complainant’s case. He stated that the paddy was transplanted by the complainant, of which 03 maunds of paddy was looted. He in his examination, had also stated about the land dispute going on between the parties for the last 2-3 years. Since CW-3 was not produced for cross-examination, his deposition was expunged. CW-4 had supported the complainant’s case. He stated that the paddy was transplanted by the complainant, of which 03 maunds of paddy was looted. He in his examination, had also stated about the land dispute going on between the parties for the last 2-3 years. CW-5, complainant herself, had supported her case and alleged that the accused persons armed with Farsa, Kachiya, etc. took away the paddy transplanted by her. She in her cross-examination, stated that prior to this occurrence, there was land dispute going on between them. Accused are her agnates. CW-6 Mahendra Oraon had stated that the complainant had submitted an application which was marked as Ext.-A. On 21.07.2002 Minutes of the meeting was entered in the register which was marked as Ext.-7. On the basis of Ext.-A, meeting was held on 21.07.2002 and proceedings were recorded at page-34 & 35 and he signed over the register which was marked as Ext.-D. Complainant had not signed on the application in his presence. 9. Statement of the accused were recorded after closure of the evidence of the complainant under section 313 Cr.PC. Learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused persons on the basis of the evidence on record. It also took note that the ancestor of the both parties were recorded tenant and the dispute relate to Jamabandi No. 35. In respect of land of Mouza Baratwara under Jamabandi No. 35, Bhutha Dhangar was the recorded tenant while the accused have claimed their share over the land. Learned Trial Court came to the opinion that no one except Bhutha Dhangar was the recorded tenant. He also discussed the statement of the witnesses that Bhutha Dhangar had two sons namely, Sanwana and Puncho. Therefore, he had not died issueless. As such, Rama Oraon was the grandson of Bhutha Dhandar. Ext.-6 disclosed that the land under Jamabandi No. 22/32 is recorded in the name of ancestor of both the parties. However, as per the complaint petition, disputed land belongs to Mouza Baratwara under jamabandi No. 35. Therefore, this documents (Ext.-6) was not relevant. He further discussed about the meeting held on 21.07.2002 regarding the land which are situated in Mouza Bhoju Chak Khata No. 32 and Mouza Baratwara under Jamabandi No. 35 before the Oraon Community reforms Committee. However, as per the complaint petition, disputed land belongs to Mouza Baratwara under jamabandi No. 35. Therefore, this documents (Ext.-6) was not relevant. He further discussed about the meeting held on 21.07.2002 regarding the land which are situated in Mouza Bhoju Chak Khata No. 32 and Mouza Baratwara under Jamabandi No. 35 before the Oraon Community reforms Committee. The committee had ordered, as per Ext.-8, that the family members of Bhutha Dhangar shall plough the land with the help of local persons. Ext.-9 disclosed that the land is situate at Mouza Baratwara under Jamabandi No. 53/35 which is exclusively recorded in the name of Shive Oraon and Mosomat Bircho Devi (Complainant). Further discussion have been made about the owners of the land based upon different documents such as Ext.-A, Ext.-7, Ext.-B, etc. Ext.-D disclosed that the complainant and her family members were the first party in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. Pc before the S.D.M., Godda where the accused persons were the second party. The Circle Officer, Mahagma had issued two genealogical table vide Ext.-5 and F which were contradictory to each other. Ext.-5 mentioned that Bhutha Dhangar had got two sons named above while the complainant is the widow of late Panchu Oraon, but Ext.-5 issued by the same office mentioned that one Bhutha Modi has died issueless. Circle Officer, Mahagma had personally appeared before the Learned Trial Court and submitted that Ext.-5 is the genuine document. Hence, the complainant version is found true that she is the daughter-in-law of the recorded tenant Bhutha Dhangar. Learned Trial Court based on the discussions on the ownership and possession of the land in question, finally came to the conclusion that the complainant had established her case against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 25.08.2009, they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to serve simple imprisonment for one year for the offences under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for two years for the offences under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 10. The Appellate Court, after discussions of the evidence on record, was of the view that materials on record were sufficient to establish at least an appearance or colour of legal right of the appellants over the place of occurrence i.e. land. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 10. The Appellate Court, after discussions of the evidence on record, was of the view that materials on record were sufficient to establish at least an appearance or colour of legal right of the appellants over the place of occurrence i.e. land. It relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Survari Sanyasi Abbarao Versus Bodopalli Lakshminarayan [ AIR 1962 SC 586 ] where the Apex Court has held that an act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right. Learned Court was of the view that in such circumstances, benefit of doubt should accrue to the accused/appellants who were not only agnates of the complainant but had a claim of right also which could not be conclusively determined in the criminal proceeding. Based on the evidence, Learned court acquitted the accused persons of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Court did not find the evidence sufficient to establish the charge under sections 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Hence, all these 16 accused persons were acquitted by the Appellate Court with which, the petitioner is aggrieved. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to improve the case beyond what has been held by the Appellate Court. Evidence on record in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and the findings of the Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have been discussed in the foregoing paragraph. We find that the allegations under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code were omnibus in nature and despite allegations that the accused persons were heavily armed, there is no proof of any injury or assault on the complainant or anyone of her party. At the same time, evidence of the complainant and her witnesses disclosed that the accused persons were agnates and in fact, accused and others had transplanted paddy. Evidence on record therefore did not establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt in the aforesaid circumstances. 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the discussions made, we are not satisfied that any good grounds have been made out for Special Leave to Appeal. Evidence on record therefore did not establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt in the aforesaid circumstances. 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the discussions made, we are not satisfied that any good grounds have been made out for Special Leave to Appeal. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed