JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that he has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner No. 7 has expired on 01.10.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner No. 7 has expired. 5. Accordingly, office is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 7 from the cause title in red ink. 6. The matter has been further argued by the learned counsel for the parties on merits. 7. Instant revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2012 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the learned trial court. 8. Vide judgment dated 2nd June, 2006 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 100/1997, T.R. No. 231/2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar passed substantive sentence only against the petitioner no. 7,namely, Paitar Rajwar (since deceased) for offence under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest of the petitioners were given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the learned trial court upon furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- of two sureties each of the like amount with a condition to maintain peace and good behaviour for the period of two years. 9. The learned appellate court vide judgment dated 19.01.2012 modified the sentence of the petitioner no. 7, Paitar Rajwar and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143 of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the surviving petitioners 10. 7, Paitar Rajwar and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143 of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the surviving petitioners 10. Learned counsel for the surviving petitioners at the outset has submitted that substantive sentence was passed only against the petitioner No. 7 who has already expired but so far as other petitioners are concerned, they were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as the impugned judgments of conviction of the surviving petitioners are concerned, the same are perverse and accordingly not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel while referring to the impugned judgments has submitted that initially the police had submitted final form by indicating that there was land dispute between the parties but upon a protest filed from the side of the complainant, the case was instituted and the petitioners were charged for the offence under Section 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has also submitted that the witnesses examined before the learned court below were all interested witnesses and were closely related to each other. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel does not dispute the fact that there are concurrent findings based on evidence against the convicts including the surviving petitioners. Arguments of the State 11. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and no illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, accordingly no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. Findings of this court 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings in connection with the offence committed by the petitioners under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code. Findings of this court 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings in connection with the offence committed by the petitioners under Sections 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code. This court is also of the view that merely because the witnesses were related to the complainant that by itself is not a ground for disbelieving those witnesses particularly when they have been fully cross examined by the side of the defence except P.W-3 who has not been cross examined and his evidence has not been considered by the learned trial court. This court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not succeeded in indicating any illegality or perversity as such in the impugned judgments of conviction. In view of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below holding the convicts guilty, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments of conviction. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. 13. The prosecution story in brief is that the father of the complainant got settlement of entire land of J.B. No. 2 of Mauza Tharhi including the land in question-Plot No. 753 in a Pradhani by eviction proceeding of court of S.D.O. Deoghar vide P.E. Case No. 261/1933-34. After getting settlement, his father got delivery of possession of all the land of J.B. No. 2 of Mauza Tharhi on 09.01.1936 and same was also confirmed by then S.D.O. Deoghar by his order dated 22.01.1936. The father of the informant was in physical possession of lands of entire J.B. No. 2 and paid rent. After his death, his son (informant) along with his brother were in peaceful cultivating possession of all the lands of J.B. No. 2 and they were paying rent regularly. At the time of occurrence, the paddy crop was grown by complainant in plot no. 753. It is further case of the complainant that on the date and year of occurrence while the complainant had gone to see and watch his paddy crop in plot No. 753, he saw accused Sudhir Rajwar armed with lathi and Madan Rajwar armed with sword standing in the southern side of his field and all other accused persons were cutting his paddy crop with sickles. The complainant protested, but Madan Rajwar and Sudhir Rajwar threatened the complainant and they were ready to assault. They chased the complainant who raised alarm upon which the prosecution witnesses, who were also watching their respective paddy crop nearby the aforesaid plot No. 753, came there and saw the occurrence. When the prosecution witnesses came there the accused persons fled away with the bundles of paddy which they had already cut. It has been alleged that the accused persons had cut and removed 20 mounts paddy crop valued at Rs. 1200. The complainant informed the aforesaid incident to police on 20.11.1996 and gave his fardbeyan. 14. The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 147/379 of the Indian Penal Code and upon investigation the Investigating Officer submitted final form stating that there is civil dispute between the parties. A protest cum complaint petition was filed by the complainant against 11 accused persons for offence under Sections 143,379 of the Indian Penal Code. After enquiry the learned court found prima facie case under the said sections. During pendency of the proceedings, the accused Madan Rajwar died and accordingly the proceedings against him was dropped. 15. Altogether 5 witnesses were examined including the complainant (P.W. 5.) . P.W. 3 did not appear for cross examination and accordingly the learned courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W. 3. A large number of documentary evidences were also filed from the side of the complainant in connection with previous case and also to show that complainant was in physical possession of the land in question of plot No. 753. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the petitioners were recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. The defence examined only one witness. 16. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial curt relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W 4 and P.W. 5 and also documentary evidences on record and held that the land in question was in possession of the complainant and the learned trial court considered the minor contradictions of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and found that the contradictions were not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned trial court also recorded that the complainant had proved that he was the bonafide person to claim the land in question. The learned trial court also recorded that the complainant had proved that he was the bonafide person to claim the land in question. The learned trial court scrutinized the evidence regarding the incident and recorded that complainant P.W. 5 had fully supported the prosecution case and was thoroughly cross examined. The learned trial court found that the complainant witness No. 2 and 4 also supported the prosecution case and were thoroughly cross examined. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted all the petitioners for offence under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code including petitioner No. 7 (since deceased) and sentenced petitioner No. 7 (since deceased). So far as present petitioners are concerned, they were directed to be released on furnishing bound under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 17. Learned appellate court also scrutinized he materials on record and has specifically recorded in para-8 of the judgment that P.W. 1 to 5 were the complainant’s witnesses and out of them P.W. 3 was not produced by the prosecution for cross examination after framing of charge and so his statement was incomplete and was not admissible in evidence. Learned appellate court also recorded that P.W. 5, the complainant had fully supported the prosecution case which was in turn supported by P.W.s 1,2,4 and 5 and P.W.s 1, 2 and 4 were eye witnesses to the occurrence who were also thoroughly cross examined from the side of the defence. The learned appellate court also scrutinized the materials on record and upheld the conviction of the petitioners as well as deceased petitioner no.7. The appellate court modified the sentence of the Paitar Rajwar (deceased petitioner no. 7) though he was previously convicted in a case of same nature for same offence. 18. Learned appellate court also recorded similar finding of conviction of the petitioners, reduced the sentence of petitioner No. 7, (since deceased). 19. This court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating all the material on record. There is no scope for reappreciating the materials on record and coming to different finding in absence of any perversity or material irregularity. This court does not find any illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioners which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. There is no scope for reappreciating the materials on record and coming to different finding in absence of any perversity or material irregularity. This court does not find any illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioners which has been upheld by the learned appellate court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and is dismissed. 20. Pending I.A., if any, dismissed as not pressed. 21. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. Petition dismissed