ORDER : Through Video Conferencing 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners alongwith Mr. Shadab Iqbal, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 alongwith Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate. 4. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the Judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal. 5. The criminal appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.07.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 502 of 2005 / T.R. No. 62/2009 (arising out of Sadar P.S. case No.127/2005 dated 03.04.2005) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty and convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing his arguments specifically submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and accordingly call for interference by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the property-in-question was purchased by the petitioners from one Mahabir Dubey who, in turn, had purchased the property in the year 1976 vide sale deed which was marked as Exhibit-C, executed by the wife of the recorded tenant and their mutation was also done vide Exhibit-A/1 in favour of Mahabir Dubey. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the grandson (nati) of the wife of the recorded tenant sold the property to the informant of the case, who happens to be an Advocate. The learned counsel submitted that there was a title suit being Title Suit No. 15 of 1983 and thereafter, Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991 and subsequently, Second Appeal No. 82 of 2002 which has been admitted by this Court and is pending for consideration. 8. The learned counsel submitted that there was a title suit being Title Suit No. 15 of 1983 and thereafter, Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991 and subsequently, Second Appeal No. 82 of 2002 which has been admitted by this Court and is pending for consideration. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 789 of 2010 disposed of on 17.12.2018 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 485 of 2008 to submit that there was bonafide title dispute between the parties and accordingly, the petitioners could not have been convicted in the present case. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are neither accused, nor informant in Sadar P.S. Case No. 485 of 2008 which was subject matter of Cr.M.P No.789 of 2010 and he also did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are not party in the title suit / title appeal/second appeal, whose details have been mentioned above, but he submitted that said Mahabir Dubey is a party in the said title suit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W.-6 and in his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that none of the villagers had supported the case of the informant party. He further submitted that P.W.- 1 and P.W.-2 are hearsay witnesses, but the learned courts below have said that they are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel referred to Paras- 9 to 11 of the trial court judgment and in particular, he has referred to Para-6 of the deposition of P.W.-2. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment passed by this Court reported in (2020) 1 Eastern Criminal Case 478, Para-19 to 22 and submitted that in the said case also, the accused had made a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that the land was their property and accordingly, they were harvesting and in the present case also, the accused has made similar statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel has further submitted that otherwise also, in cases where there are bonafide land dispute, the petitioners could not have been convicted and this aspect of the matter has not been considered properly by the learned courts below. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 11. Learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 elaborately placed the judgment passed by the learned appellate court and submitted that so far as document in connection with rent receipt Annexures - A and A/1 are concerned, a finding has been given by the learned appellate court that the said documents did not relate to the property involved in the present case. He further referred to the other finding recorded by the learned court below and particularly referred to the finding in connection with the possession of the property with the informant. He also submitted that there are consistent finding of facts by both the learned courts below and there is no scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction disturbing the concurrent finding of facts in absence of any perversity and no perversity, illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Referring to the evidence of P.W. 6, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief giving names of the persons whose evidence were recorded by him and there has been no cross examination of the Investigating Officer on this point. He submitted that the evidences of all the witnesses including P.W-1, 2 and 6 have been rightly considered by the learned courts below. 12. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the title of property is irrelevant in the matter of criminal case and what is important is that there has been consistent finding of possession of the property in favour of the informant of the present case and it was also deposed that the informant party had sown the crop and was entitled to harvest the same and no such evidence in connection with the sowing of the crop was led from the side of the defence. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party State submitted that he would be adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. Findings of this Court 14. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party State submitted that he would be adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant (O.P. No.2 herein) alleging interalia that on 03.04.2005 at about 08.45 a.m., the Informant alongwith Ram Gaya Mahto went to see his Arhar crop which he had sown on his field under Khata No.59, Plot Nos.1090 and 1091, area about 16 katha, Village- Rajwadih, where he saw that the petitioners and some unknown labourers were cutting his Arhar crop. When the Informant objected, the petitioners asked the Informant to go away from the field. It was further alleged that during the course of the occurrence, several persons assembled and saw the occurrence. Seeing the situation tensed, the Informant, being an advocate, controlled himself and went to the police station. It was further alleged that the petitioners harvested about 08 katha of Arhar crop weighing about 03 quintals worth Rs.4,500/-. 15. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered as Sadar P.S. case No.127/2005 dated 03.04.2005 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.36/2005 dated 31.05.2005 against the petitioners under the said section. The charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 16. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in the case. PW-1 is Ram Krishna Pandey, PW-2 is Ram Gaya Mahto, PW-3 is Singhasan Pandey, PW-4 is Sureswar Pandey who is the Informant of the case, PW-5 is Gokhuleshwar Pandey and PW-6 is Satrughan Prasad who is the Investigating Officer of the case. 17. The prosecution exhibited the following documents : Exhibit-1 C.C. of Sale Deed No.7023 dated 12.08.1980 executed by Nanhku Mahto (grandson of recorded tenant) in favour of the Informant. Exhibit-2 C.C. of Judgment in T.A. 45/1991 dt. 17. The prosecution exhibited the following documents : Exhibit-1 C.C. of Sale Deed No.7023 dated 12.08.1980 executed by Nanhku Mahto (grandson of recorded tenant) in favour of the Informant. Exhibit-2 C.C. of Judgment in T.A. 45/1991 dt. 29.06.02 whereby the judgement dated 21.05.1991 and decree dated 04.06.1991 passed in Title Suit No. 15 of 1983 was set-aside. Exhibit-2/A C.C. of decree in T.A. No.45/1991. Present informant (P.W-4) and Ram Gaya Mahto (P.W-2) were the plaintiffs/appellants and Mahabir Dubey, Machhali Pandey and others were the defendants/respondents. Exhibit-3 C.C. of Judgment in G.R. Case No.1071/1998 dated 22.07.2004 in which both the present petitioners were accused and were convicted. Exhibit-4 C.C. of deposition of Priya Ranjan Pandey (D.W.-2) in C-436/2003 Exhibit-5 Fardbeyan Exhibit-6 C.C. of order dated 09.10.2005 in Misc. Case No.20/2005-06. 18. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of petitioners under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to innocent. The petitioners had stated in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they had harvested the crop as the land belongs to them. 19. The defence produced two witnesses as oral evidence. They are D.W.-1, Akhilesh Tiwary and DW-2 is Priya Ranjan Pandey and exhibited the following documents: Exhibit-A&A/1 Rent Receipt Nos.110117 & 851389 with the name Mahabir Dubey. Exhibit-B&B/1 C.C. of Sale Deed No.10534 & 10535 of the year 1995 both by Mahabir Dubey in favour of Kalinda Devi (wife of petitioner no. 2). Exhibit-B/2 C.C. of Sale Deed No. 8717 dated 07.12.1976 Jamuni Mahatwain (wife of the recorded tenant) in favour of Mahabir Dubey and Machhali Pandey. Exhibit-C C.C. of deposition of Upendra Tiwari in C-436/2003 Exhibit-C/1 C.C. of deposition of Upendra Tiwari in C-436/2003 20. P.W. 4, the informant of the case has deposed that on 03.04.2005 at about 8.45 a.m., he went to see his Arhar crop along with the Gaya Mahto (P.W.2). He has stated that he had planted Arhar crop in plot no.1090, 1091 area 16 kathas. He has further stated that he found that the present petitioners were cutting the crop of 8 katthas of land with the help of labours and were removing the cut crop. He has stated that he had planted Arhar crop in plot no.1090, 1091 area 16 kathas. He has further stated that he found that the present petitioners were cutting the crop of 8 katthas of land with the help of labours and were removing the cut crop. He further deposed that he along with Gaya Mahto asked the accused as to why they were doing such illegal work then the accused persons asked the informant to go away from the field failing which they will be faced with dire consequences. Consequently, the informant returned to his house and narrated the entire story to his brother and nephew and this witness has deposed that the accused persons had cut and taken away Arhar crop of 8 kathas of land valued about Rs.4500, quantity being 3 quintals. This witness has exhibited the written report as Exhibit 5. He has further deposed that he had purchased the place of occurrence land from Nanku Mahto (grandson of the recorded tenant) and his title and possession has been confirmed vide Title Appeal No.45 of 1991 (Exhibit 2). The sale deed has been exhibited as Exhibit 1 by which he purchased half area of plot no.1090 and 1091 bearing khata no.59 of village Rajwadih in the year 1980. P.W. 4 deposed that his title was confirmed by title appeal and the accused had preferred appeal in the High Court claiming their title and possession. He has further stated that Jhotail Mahto (recorded tenant), had two daughters, one died during his lifetime and the other one had two sons namely Nanku (vendor of the informant) and Ram Gaya Mahto (P.W-2). He had further denied that execution of any sale deed by Jamuni Mahto (wife of recorded tenant) in favour of Mahavir Dubey and stated that Mahavir Dubey had got the sale deed executed by impersonating Jamuni Mahatmain and that no consideration amount was ever paid by Mahavir Dubey in connection with the sale deed. He had also deposed that Mahavir Dubey, was neither examined in the title suit nor he had come to support the case of the defence in the present case. He also deposed that in the title appeal, the possession has been confirmed and decreed in his favour and he is the informant of the present case. He had also deposed that Mahavir Dubey, was neither examined in the title suit nor he had come to support the case of the defence in the present case. He also deposed that in the title appeal, the possession has been confirmed and decreed in his favour and he is the informant of the present case. He has further stated that he along with Gaya Ram Mahto are in possession over the land in question. He admitted that he had not applied for mutation of the land in his favour. P.W.1 is Ram Krishna Pandey (brother of the informant) who has deposed that on 3.4.2005 at about 8.45 a.m., he was present in his house when the informant and Daya Mahto came and informed him that the petitioners with the help of 5 to 6 persons are cutting his Arhar crop. Then, this witness went to the place of occurrence and his brother i.e., informant went to thana. This witness has also deposed that when he reached the field, he saw that the accused persons were cutting arhar crop and removing the same and the accused persons have harvested crop of 31 to 32 decimals. He has also deposed that Gokuleshwar Pandey (P.W.6) and Ashok Kumar Pandey had also come with him there and he identified the accused. This witness was fully cross examined and he had deposed that his younger brother had purchased the place of occurrence land and he admitted that there was dispute between the informant and Machhali Pandey since 1977 and there is a decree in favour of the informant and also admitted that Mahavir Dubey was also party in the case. He further deposed that he did not know whether Kalindi Devi wife of Upendra Tiwari had purchased the place of occurrence land from Mahavir Dubey. He has stated that Upendra Tiwari never cultivated the place of occurrence land. In his cross examination, he has stated that though the informant is an advocate but he has tractor, two oxen and ploughmen for cultivating land by himself and on hired labour. P.W.2 is Ram Gaya Mahto (grandson of the recorded tenant) and he claims to possess half of the land of the two plots involved in the present case. In his cross examination, he has stated that though the informant is an advocate but he has tractor, two oxen and ploughmen for cultivating land by himself and on hired labour. P.W.2 is Ram Gaya Mahto (grandson of the recorded tenant) and he claims to possess half of the land of the two plots involved in the present case. He is said to have gone with the informant to the place of occurrence and witnessed that the accused persons were harvesting the Arhar crop of the informant. He has also supported prosecution case by stating that he also asked the accused as to why they were cutting the crop of the informant and the accused asked them to do anything they like. He has stated that he returned along with the informant and informed about the occurrence to Ram Kishun Pandey, Janardhan Pandey, Ashok Pandey and Gokuleshwar Pandey. He has denied that his grandmother ever sold any land to Mahavir Dubey and also denied that Mahavir Dubey sold the same to the wife of Upendra Tiwari (accused-petitioner no. 2). He has deposed that the place of occurrence belongs to him and the informant and they had sown arhar crop on the place of occurrence and the crop was taken away by the accused. P.W. 3 is the nephew of the informant, who has deposed that the information about the incident was given by the informant and he went to the place of occurrence land along with Ashok Kumar Pandey, Gokuleshwar Pandey and Ram Kishun Pandey and found that the accused, with the help of the labours, were harvesting the crop and removing the same. This witness has supported the case of the informant. P.W. 5 has deposed that on 03.04.2005 at 8.45 a.m, he was present in his house when his brother (informant) and Gaya Mahto came and stated him about the occurrence. He along with Ram Kishun Pandey, Ashok Pandey went to the place of occurrence and found the accused with the help of labours were harvesting the Arhar crop of the informant. He has clearly deposed that the place of occurrence land belongs to the informant and he has sown the Arhar crop. He along with Ram Kishun Pandey, Ashok Pandey went to the place of occurrence and found the accused with the help of labours were harvesting the Arhar crop of the informant. He has clearly deposed that the place of occurrence land belongs to the informant and he has sown the Arhar crop. Thus, P.W. 5 has also supported the prosecution case regarding the place, time and manner of occurrence and has also supported the prosecution case by stating that the place of occurrence land belongs to the informant and that informant had sown the Arhar crop. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who claimed to have inspected the place of occurrence and has stated that none of the persons mentioned about land dispute between the parties. However, he has supported the case of the prosecution. 21. The specific case of the defence was that they have harvested the crop in question because the place of occurrence land belongs to them. In support of their stand, the defence had examined two witnesses. D.W.1 is the son of the petitioner no. 1, who proved Exhibit A of Khata No. 59 in the name of Mahavir Dubey and Exhibit A/1 of the same Khata again in the name of Mahavir Dubey. He could not depose on the point of the date and time of sowing arhar crop in the place of occurrence field. D.W-2 deposed that the petitioner no.2 had sown the crop in the year 2004 in the place of occurrence which he had harvested. He deposed that petitioner no. 2 had purchased the land in question in the year 1995 in the name of his wife vide Exhibit B and B/1 but there was no mutation order or rent receipt in her favour. He has deposed that he had given evidence in favour of Machhali Pandey in Complaint Case No.436 of 2003. 22. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences adduced by prosecution and also the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defence and summarized its finding in Para-13 of its judgment which reads as under: “13. Learned lawyer of the defence submitted that appeal is in continuation and Mahabir Dubey has filed appeal in Hon’ble High Court. But no any documentary proof has been filed by the defence. Learned lawyer of the defence submitted that appeal is in continuation and Mahabir Dubey has filed appeal in Hon’ble High Court. But no any documentary proof has been filed by the defence. There is also no proof whether Kalindi Debi W/o Upender has been made party in the suit. Whether Mahabir Dubey succeed or fail and result may be subject to lis pendence. But when there is title in favour of the informant, the accused persons, on the alleged date and time of occurrence cannot be supposed to have been in possession and title over the land-in-question. The accused have taken the law in their hand and harvested the crop without lawful authority. The accused have not taken possession through due process of law. So it is clear cut high handedness of the accused. Learned lawyer submitted that there is bonafide land dispute and relied on A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 949 which is not applicable in such case because there was possession in favour of accused in execution proceeding. Here matter is totally different. The title and possession is in favour of prosecution and accused have purchased the land-in-question during the litigation. So there was no question of obtaining possession lawfully.” 23. The learned trial court also considered the defence evidence and while considering the evidence of D.W. 1 was of the view that creation or cancellation of Jamabandi does not create or cancel any title and right in favour of any person and it is the civil court which is the appropriate forum for adjudication of question relating to right, title and interest over the land. The learned trial court also observed that the title has been found in favour of the informant of the present case in Title Appeal No.45 of 1991 decreed on 29.06.2002. The learned trial court also considered the evidence of D.W. 2 and was of the view that D.W. 2 is an interested witness as he had deposed in favour of Machhali Pandey in Complaint Case No.436 of 2003 and he deposed that the petitioner no. 2 had purchased the place of occurrence land in the year 1995 vide Exhibit B and B/1 which is in the name of the wife of petitioner no. 2, but there was no mutation order or any rent receipt in her name. The learned trial court was of the view that this clearly showed that petitioner no. 2 had purchased the place of occurrence land in the year 1995 vide Exhibit B and B/1 which is in the name of the wife of petitioner no. 2, but there was no mutation order or any rent receipt in her name. The learned trial court was of the view that this clearly showed that petitioner no. 2 had purchased the place of occurrence land during the pendency of Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991 without the permission of the court and he was not made party in the suit. The learned trial court also considered that D.W. 2 had deposed that Upendra Tiwari had sown the crop in 2004 and harvested the same, but did not depose when he had sown the crop. Accordingly, on the point of sowing seed on the place of occurrence, the learned trial court was of the view that defence has failed, and on the other hand, prosecution has successfully deposed that the informant had grown arhar crop in the place of occurrence field. The learned trial court though recorded the submission of the defence counsel that the appeal has been filed in the High Court, but before the learned trial court, no documentary proof was filed by the defence and there was no proof whether wife of the petitioner no. 2 was made party in the suit. The learned trial court was of the view that when there is title in favour of the informant the accused persons cannot be supposed to have possession and title over the land in question. The trial court held that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the accused had taken law in their own hand and harvested the crop without lawful authority and that accused had not taken possession of the land through due process of law and therefore it was a clear-cut case of high handedness of the accused. The trial court held that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the accused had taken law in their own hand and harvested the crop without lawful authority and that accused had not taken possession of the land through due process of law and therefore it was a clear-cut case of high handedness of the accused. The fact that a second appeal has been filed in the High Court in connection with the place of occurrence land along with its number and other details were not before the learned trial court and the learned trial court substantially based its findings on the judgement and decree passed by the appellate court in favour of the informant party inter-alia relating to the place of occurrence land by holding that when there is title in favour of the informant, the accused persons cannot be supposed to have possession and title over the land in question. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners under section 379 IPC for having harvested and taking away the arhar crop. 24. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court, after considering the evidences and materials on record in detail, recorded its finding in Para-6 of its judgment which reads as under: “6. ………………… Let us scrutinize the evidence of P.W.-4, Sureshwar Pandey, the informant. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.-4, Sureshwar Pandey, that he has supported the case of prosecution and has reiterated his statement made in the FIR. I need not repeat the same. This witness has stated that his statement was recorded by Darogaji as he has stated before Daroga Jee. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the defence, but nothing adverse material has been elicited which goes to demolish the veracity of the testimony of this witness. This witness has confirmed in his cross-examination in Para 7 that the land over which the alleged occurrence has occurred is in his possession and he had purchased the land from Nanhku Yadav, who is the grandson of Jhotail Ahir. He has denied the fact that Jamuni Mahtain, wife of Jhotail Yadav did not execute any sale deed in favour of Mahabir Dubey. He has denied the fact that Jamuni Mahtain, wife of Jhotail Yadav did not execute any sale deed in favour of Mahabir Dubey. He has also stated in para 5 that in the Title Suit, the said Mahabir Dubey had filed the sale deed which was held in T.A. No. 45 of 1991 as a forged and fabricated document. This fact also find support by the informant as Ext.-2, certified copy of the judgment passed on 29.06.2002 in T.A. No.45 of 1991, Ram Gaya Mahto and others Vs. Mahabir Dubey and others in which the learned court has found that the sale deed allegedly executed by Jamuni Mahatain in favour of Mahabir Dubey was not executed by Jamuni, but it was executed by impostering Jamuni Mahatain by any other lady. It is pertinent to mention that the said judgment was passed prior to the alleged occurrence and this judgment also confirmed possession of the informant over the plot over which the Arhar crop was sown. The possession of the informant over said plot is also confirmed by the certified copy of the sale deed no.7023 dated 12.08.1980 executed by Nanhka Mahto in favour of the informant Sureshwar Pandey which is Ext.-1 in the instant case. This goes to suggest that the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext.-1 was executed more prior to the alleged occurrence. From perusal of Ext.-3 certified copy of the decree in T.A. no. 45 of 1991, it does reveal that the informant Sureshwar Pandey is one of the plaintiff/appellant in the said case. Thus evidence of P.W.-4 read with the above discussed document goes to show that the said Arhar was sown by the informant and at the time of the alleged occurrence, the said Arhar was being harvested by the appellants. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.-2 Ram Gaya Mahto that this witness has supported the case of prosecution as well as corroborated the evidence of P.W.-4, the informant Sureshwar Pandey. This witness has stated in specific term that when he along with the informant Sureshwar Pandey went to the plot, he saw that the Arhar was being harvested by the appellants along with other labourers and Arhar of six Katha area had been harvested. This witness has stated in specific term that when he along with the informant Sureshwar Pandey went to the plot, he saw that the Arhar was being harvested by the appellants along with other labourers and Arhar of six Katha area had been harvested. This witness has also stated that they returned back and went to the house of the informant and from there they went to police station and the informant had lodged FIR. This witness has also been cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse material has been elicited which goes to demolish the veracity of the testimony of this witness. This witness has confirmed in his cross-examination that Jamuni was his Nani and the alleged sale deed executed by Mahabir Pandey in favour of Kalindi is forged document. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.-1 Ramkrishna Pandey, P.W.-3 Singhasan Pandey and P.W.-5 Gokhuleshwar Pandey that they are witnesses who have stated in one voice that they were informed by the informant and Ram Gaya Ram Mahto regarding the alleged occurrence at their respective houses and after hearing they went to the place of occurrence and found that the appellants were harvesting the Arhar sown by the informant Sureshwar Pandey. In cross-examination, they have confirmed that when they went to the place of occurrence, they found that the appellants were harvesting the Arhar along with other labourers. P.W.6 Satrughan Prasad, A.S.I. is the I.O. of the instant case. He has confirmed that after receiving the charge of investigation of the case, he visited to the place of occurrence and inspected the place of occurrence as identified by the informant. He described the boundary of the place of occurrence and has stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and on found correct, he has submitted charge sheet against the appellants.” 25. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court has dealt with claims of the petitioners over the disputed land in the later portion of Para-6 and has observed that the defence has not succeeded to establish their possession over the place of occurrence land on the date of the incident. The relevant portion is quoted as under: - “6………. From the above discussions it is crystal clear that the informant has succeeded to prove the case of the prosecution. Let us scrutinize the evidence adduced from the side of defence. The relevant portion is quoted as under: - “6………. From the above discussions it is crystal clear that the informant has succeeded to prove the case of the prosecution. Let us scrutinize the evidence adduced from the side of defence. It is pertinent to mention that one of the important and significant witness, who has allegedly sold the plot to Kalindi Devi, wife of appellant no. 2 over which the alleged occurrence has taken place and who is Mahabir Dubey has not been examined as a witness to support the defence version, the reason best known to the defence. It is evident from the evidence of D.W. 1 Akhilesh Tiwari that he is son of one of the appellant Rago Tiwari and has proved the rent receipts Ext.-A and Ext.-A/1. In his cross-examination he has stated that the said rent receipts were not issued in his presence and he cannot say that in whose name said rent receipts were issued. From perusal of rent receipts, Ext. A and A/1 it does transpire that the said rent receipts are not in connection with the plots over which the alleged occurrence occurred. It is evident from perusal of Ext.-4, the statement made by Priya Ranjan Pandey in C.P. 436 of 2003 who happens to be D.W. 2 in the instant case that this witness is the brother-in-law of Mahabir Dubey and has stated regarding the sale deed allegedly executed by Jamuni Mahtain in favour of Mahabir Dubey regarding fourteen plots but he has not stated regarding execution of sale deed of the aforesaid plots over which the alleged occurrence occurred. Thus, the evidence of this witness is also of no avail for the defence. This is suggestive of the fact that the defence has not succeeded to establish the prima facie defence taken by the defence that they were in possession over the plot over which the alleged occurrence has taken place on the date of alleged occurrence.” 26. This Court finds that admittedly the place of occurrence in the instant case is half-share of Plot No. 1090 and 1091 of Khata No. 59. The informant as well as the accused are claiming title and possession over the property by virtue of registered sale-deeds. This Court finds that admittedly the place of occurrence in the instant case is half-share of Plot No. 1090 and 1091 of Khata No. 59. The informant as well as the accused are claiming title and possession over the property by virtue of registered sale-deeds. Admittedly, mutation has not been applied for by the informant and the rent receipt exhibited by the accused i.e. Exhibit- A and A/1 do not relate to the aforesaid place of occurrence as has been held by the learned lower appellate court. This Court finds that apparently there is no mutation in connection with the place of occurrence, either in favour of the informant or in favour of the accused/wife of petitioner no. 2 and both the parties are claiming title over the property by virtue of registered deeds. 27. This Court further finds that the informant is claiming the place of occurrence land by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 12.08.1980 (Exhibit-1) executed by Nanku Mahto, one of the grand sons of recorded tenant of the property and the informant further claims possession over the property and claims to have sown Arhar crop which was taken away by the accused on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioners is that they have purchased the place of occurrence land by virtue of two registered sale-deeds both executed in the year 1995 in the name of the wife of petitioner no. 2 executed by Mahabir Dubey, who in turn had purchased it along with Machhali Pandey vide registered deed dated 07.12.1976 from the wife of the recorded tenant. The petitioners also claim to be in possession of the property and it is their specific case that they had cut the crop on the place of occurrence owned by them. 28. It is also not in dispute that the informant of the present case along with another grandson of the recorded tenant namely Ram Gaya Mahato (P.W-2) had filed Title Suit No. 15 of 1983, interalia, challenging the aforesaid sale-deed dated 07.12.1976 (Exhibit B/2), which is the basis of claim of title on the place of occurrence land so far as the accused/ petitioners are concerned. It further appears that the title suit was decided against the plaintiffs vide judgement and decree dated 21.05.1991 and 04.06.1991 respectively which was subject matter of appeal filed by the informant of the present case and said Ram Gaya Mahato (P.W. 2) in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991 and the said appeal was decided vide judgement and decree dated 29.06.2002 in favour of the informant and Ram Gaya Mahato (P.W. 2) and interalia, the sale-deed dated 07.12.1976 was declared void and right, title, interest and possession of the place of occurrence land involved in the present case was declared in favour of the informant. It is not in dispute that a second appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgement and decree dated 29.06.2002 passed in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991 being S.A. No. 82 of 2002 and has been admitted by this Court and is pending for consideration. 29. Thus, at the time when the informant claims to have purchased the property in question in the year 1980, the title suit was not pending, and in fact, the title suit was instituted in the year 1983 which was decided against the informant vide judgement passed in the year 1991 and during the pendency of appeal, the accused claimed to have purchased the property in the year 1995 from Mahabir Dubey, who in turn, claimed to have purchased the property from the wife of the recorded tenant as back as in the year 1976. Thus, the judgement of reversal passed in the first appeal of the title suit is subject matter of second appeal which has been admitted and pending before this Court. 30. This Court further finds that Mahabir Dubey, Machhali Pandey and Priya Ranjan Pandey (D.W. 2) are defendants in the title suit and Ram Gaya Mahato (P.W. 2) as well as Sureshwar Pandey (informant/P.W.4) are plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 15 of 1983 which is now pending in Second Appeal No. 82 of 2002 before this Court. Admittedly, the present petitioners are not party in the aforesaid title suit, but their vendor namely Mahabir Dubey is certainly a party in the title suit who is defending the registered sale deed executed by the wife of the recorded tenant in favour of himself and Machhali Pandey. Admittedly, the present petitioners are not party in the aforesaid title suit, but their vendor namely Mahabir Dubey is certainly a party in the title suit who is defending the registered sale deed executed by the wife of the recorded tenant in favour of himself and Machhali Pandey. Thus, not only P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, but also D.W. 2 and vendor of the place of occurrence land sold to the wife of the petitioner no.2 are parties in the title suit now pending in second appeal against the judgement of reversal by the appellate court in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1991. 31. This Court finds that there can be no dispute that right, title and possession with regard to the place of occurrence land is in a fluid state and is yet to be decided in pending second appeal before this Court which has been admitted. 32. So far as the evidence regarding possession of the place of occurrence land is concerned, there being no mutation in favour of either party in connection with the property involved in this case, only the oral evidences were for consideration before the learned courts below. 33. This Court finds that there has been consistent evidence on behalf of the informant party that Arhar crop was sown by the informant, who happens to be an advocate and there is further evidence of Ram Gaya Mahato (P.W. 2) that the crop was sown by him and informant jointly. So far as the evidence of the accused (petitioners) are concerned, D.W. 2 has clearly stated that the crop was sown in the year 2004 although no specific date and time has been mentioned on which it was sown. The petitioners, in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had also explained that they had harvested the crop as the land belongs to them. This Court finds that the learned trial court was of the view that the D.W. 2 is an interested witness as he had deposed in favour of Machhali Pandey in Complaint Case No. 436 of 2003. The learned trial court has also recorded that D.W. 2 had deposed that petitioner no. This Court finds that the learned trial court was of the view that the D.W. 2 is an interested witness as he had deposed in favour of Machhali Pandey in Complaint Case No. 436 of 2003. The learned trial court has also recorded that D.W. 2 had deposed that petitioner no. 2 had sown the crop in the year 2004 and harvested the same, but could not depose that date on which he had sown the crop and therefore, the learned trial court held that on the point of sowing seed, the defence had failed to prove their point and the prosecution had successfully deposed that the informant had grown Arhar crop in the place of occurrence. 34. So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the appellate court found that Exhibit- A and A/1 exhibited by D.W. 1 did not indicate that the said rent receipts were connected with the place of occurrence. The learned appellate court also found that D.W. 2 was the brother-in-law of Mahabir Dubey and D.W. 2 had stated that the sale-deed was executed by Jamuni Mahatwain (wife of recorded tenant) in favour of Mahabir Dubey regarding 14 plots, but had not stated regarding execution of sale-deed of the aforesaid plot over which the alleged occurrence had taken place and in this background, held that the evidence of D.W. 2 is of no avail. 35. This Court finds that the finding of the learned lower appellate court that D.W. 2 had not stated regarding execution of sale-deed of the aforesaid plots over which the alleged occurrence had taken place. Admittedly, the place of occurrence in the instant case is Plot No. 1090 and 1091. The said finding of the appellate court is ex-facie perverse in view of the fact that D.W.2 in the very first para of his deposition has clearly stated that Khata No. 59 Plot Nos. 1090 and 1091 were purchased by petitioner no. 2 in the year 1995 over which petitioner no. 2 has been cultivating. In the same paragraph, he has also stated that in the year 2004, petitioner no. 2 had sown Arhar and had cut the crop. 1090 and 1091 were purchased by petitioner no. 2 in the year 1995 over which petitioner no. 2 has been cultivating. In the same paragraph, he has also stated that in the year 2004, petitioner no. 2 had sown Arhar and had cut the crop. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned appellate court has committed gross illegality and perversity while holding that D.W-2 had not stated regarding execution of sale-deed of the aforesaid plots over which the alleged occurrence had taken place i.e. Plot No. 1090 and 1091. Further, as per the argument of both the parties, it is not in dispute that the place of occurrence is Plot No. 1090 and 1091 and both the parties are claiming title with regards to the place of occurrence through two different sets of title deeds, one set in favour of the informant executed by the grandson of the recorded tenant in the year 1980 and the other in favour of the wife of the petitioner no. 2 executed by Mahabir Dubey in his favour in the year 1995 who in turn is said to have purchased the property along with Machhali Pandey from the wife of the recorded tenant in the year 1976. All these deeds are registered documents and are subject matter of dispute in the title suit in which aforesaid second appeal is pending against the judgement of reversal by the appellate court in title appeal. Thus, when the evidence of the D.W-2 is considered, this Court finds that there is rival evidence on record from both the sides that they were in physical possession of the place of occurrence and had sown crop and admittedly second appeal against appellate judgement of reversal regarding right, title, interest and possession of the same place of occurrence is pending before this Court. 36. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that there is bona fide dispute with regards to right, title, possession and interest with regards to the place of occurrence between the parties. Apparently, there is no order of mutation in favour of either parties and there is oral evidence regarding sowing of Arhar crop on the place of occurrence, both from the side of the informant party as well as the petitioners. 37. Apparently, there is no order of mutation in favour of either parties and there is oral evidence regarding sowing of Arhar crop on the place of occurrence, both from the side of the informant party as well as the petitioners. 37. The entire question of possession and even title was in extremely fluid state and therefore the question of complainant’s possession on the date of the incident was not beyond controversy and cannot be said to be beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the order of conviction and sentence calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice. 38. In view of such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgements passed by the learned courts below, convicting the petitioners for theft of crop grown on the place of occurrence by cutting and taking it away cannot be sustained considering bonafide continuing land dispute with regards to the right, title, interest and possession over the place of occurrence. Considering the rival claim of both the parties regarding sowing of seeds on the place of occurrence, the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt as there are rival oral evidences from both the sides regarding possession and sowing of seed over the place of occurrence property. 39. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners are hereby acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 40. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the Judgment dated 02.05.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2009 as well as the Judgment of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners dated 28.07.2009 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 502 of 2005 / T.R. No. 62/2009 (arising out of Sadar P.S. case No.127/2005 dated 03.04.2005) is hereby set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed. 41. The petitioners as well as the bailors are discharged of their liability under the bail bond. 42. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 43. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/e-mail”.