Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 649 of 2013
Arjun Pandey, son of Late Sahdeo Pandey residence of Village-
Gadichuto, P.O.- Amlachatar, P.S. - Jama, District- Dumka
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jago Rai, son of Late Munilal Rai;
3. Bhutki Kumari, daughter of late Ram Lal Rai;
4. Binti Devi, daughter of Jago Rai;
5. Madhuri @ Mandodari Devi, daughter of Late Munilal Rai;
6. Garga Rai, Son of Late Hari Rai;
7. Sonu Rai, son of Jago Rai;
All residents of village- Gadichuto, P.S. jama, + P.O. Jama,
District- Dumka
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma,
Senior Advocate
Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar, Advocate
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
18/12.01.2021 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel along
with Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar and Ms. Neetu Singh, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner who is the
informant of the case.
2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party- State.
3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
4. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by
the informant of the case against the judgement dated
06.06.2013 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dumka
in two criminal appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011
and Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 whereby the learned
appellate court reversed the judgement of conviction of the
opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein under Sections 143 and 379 of
Indian Penal Code and affirmed the order of their acquittal
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The trial court judgement dated 12.01.2011 was passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No.
92 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. No. 102 of 2011. The opposite
party nos. 2 to 7 were charged under Sections 143, 379 and 411
of Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court had acquitted
them under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and convicted
them only under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code.
Against the order of acquittal of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, the State had filed an
independent criminal appeal which was numbered as Criminal
Appeal No. 37 of 2011 and against the order of conviction under
Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, the opposite party
nos. 2 to 7 had filed appeal which was numbered as Criminal
Appeal No. 5 of 2011. Both the criminal appeals i.e. Criminal
Appeal No. 5 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 were
tagged together and were decided by the impugned judgement
dated 06.06.2013. As per the impugned judgement dated
06.06.2013, Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011 was allowed and
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 was dismissed which
ultimately resulted in acquittal of opposite party nos. 2 to 7
under Sections 143, 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner in the present case is the informant of the case
who is aggrieved by the ultimate acquittal of all the accused
persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
Submission of the Petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the learned lower appellate court had rightly convicted the
accused under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code by
holding that the defence could not prove that there was a
bonafide land dispute between the parties in connection with
the pond involved in the present case as the Exhibit A did not
disclose the details of the property in relation with which the
title suit was going on between the parties, but the learned
appellate court had relied upon the suggestion given to the
prosecution witness to hold that there was a bonafide land
dispute between the parties and acquitted the accused under
Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. He also submits that
the learned lower appellate court has wrongly recorded that
there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and has acquitted the accused. The learned counsel
has submitted that it has been recorded by the learned lower
appellate court that the P.W-1 had stated that only accused Jago
Rai and Garga Rai were fishing from the pond using the net but
upon perusal of his deposition it will transpire that he had
taken the name of all the accused persons.
7. He has also submitted that the learned trial court had
wrongly acquitted the accused for offence under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code against which the State had filed appeal, but
the appeal of the State was wrongly dismissed by the appellate
court. Learned counsel submits that impugned judgement
passed by the learned lower appellate court is perverse and fit
to be set-aside and the opposite parties be convicted of the
alleged offence.
8. However, during the course of arguments, it is not in
dispute from the side of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the informant /petitioner did not file any appeal against
the judgement of acquittal of the accused under Section 411 of
IPC and in the present case the State has not filed any separate
revision against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the State
against the acquittal of the accused under section 411 of Indian
Penal Code.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that the learned trial court
rightly acquitted the accused so far as offence under Section 411
of Indian Penal Code is concerned upon appreciation of the
materials available on record including the evidence of the
seizure list witness. Learned counsel has also submitted that
against the order of acquittal for offence under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code, it was the State who had moved in appeal
before the learned appellate court which was numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011. He further submits that so far
as the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code is
concerned, there are concurrent findings of the learned trial
court as well as learned appellate court and there is no scope for
interference in revisional jurisdiction particularly when the
informant of the case never filed any criminal appeal against
the order of acquittal by the learned trial court and no revision
has been filed by the State challenging the order of the appellate
court confirming acquittal of the accused under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code.
10. So far as the conviction of the accused under Sections 143
and 379 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court is
concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7
submits that the accused had filed appeal against the same as
there was bonafide title dispute between the parties in
connection with right, title, interest and possession. The learned
counsel submits that the evidence of P.W. 4, as recorded by the
learned trial court in para 12, reveals that P.W. 4 had stated that
the Shiv ganga pond was being looked after by the informant
Arjun Pandey and the villagers which indicates that the
informant was not in exclusive possession of the pond. He has
further stated that the informant of the case was claiming that
the pond was recorded in Gantzer Settlement in the name of
Chuto Nath Temple recording Sahdeo Pandey, the father of the
informant as Sewait of the temple and on the other hand, the
accused claimed that the pond was recorded in the name of
ancestors of the accused persons in Macpherson Settlement. The
learned counsel submits that the learned lower appellate court
considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter regarding the
inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the
various prosecution witnesses and came to a finding that there
is bonafide claim of right over the disputed land and property
and accordingly, acquitted the accused persons. The learned
counsel submits that the findings of the learned appellate court
are based on evidence and accordingly, the same can neither be
said to be perverse nor illegal and accordingly, the same do not
call for any interference.
Submission of opposite party-State
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party- State has submitted that although the State had filed
appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 411 of Indian
Penal code, but no revision has been filed by the State against
the order confirming acquittal of the accused under Section 411
of Indian Penal Code and admittedly the informant did not file
any appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused under
Section 411 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court. The
learned counsel for the State has supported the submissions
made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
opposite parties.
Findings of this Court
12. The prosecution case is based on the written information
of the informant Arjun Pandey, the petitioner herein, which is
dated 22.01.2007 to the officer in-charge of Jama police station.
It was alleged that he and his ancestors were doing the worship
of Baba Chuto Nath since long and there is a pond just behind
the Chuto Nath temple which is recorded in Gantzer Settlement
in the name of Sahdeo Pandey as 'Sewait' and the pond is
appertaining to J.B. No. 23 plot nos. 380 and 361 in village Gadi
Chuto. It was alleged that, in the early morning at 07 a.m. on
22.01.2007, the accused persons were taking away fishes from
Chuto Nath Temple pond with the help of 5 to 7 unknown
persons and when the informant objected them, the accused
persons began to abuse him and assaulted him with fist and
slaps. It was alleged that Rekha Devi - daughter of the
informant, Suraj Pandey - nephew of the informant and villager
Suresh Soren came to rescue the informant and then the
accused persons also abused and assaulted them. Accordingly,
it was alleged that the accused persons committed theft of fish
from Shiv ganga (pond) valued at Rs. 6700/- causing loss to the
Chuto Nath temple and that the witnesses had seen the
occurrence.
13. The case was registered as Jama P.S. case with
corresponding G.R. No. 92 of 2007 against the accused under
Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and later on, offence
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code was added vide order
dated 24.01.2007. The charge-sheet was submitted against all
the accused persons under the aforesaid offences and
cognizance was taken. Subsequently, the case was transferred
to the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dumka who framed
charges against six accused persons who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
14. At the stage of trial, the prosecution examined altogether
eight witnesses and the informant of the case was examined as
P.W. 7. The prosecution proved the seizure list as Exhibit- 1,
written information as Exhibit- 2, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit- 3,
Kramik Khatiyan as Exhibit- 6 and Khatiyan slip as Exhibit- 8.
On the other hand, the defence did not examine any witness on
their behalf, but they tendered a certified copy of summons
served to Arjun Pandey (informant) in Title Suit No. 6 of 2010
as Exhibit- A.
15. After evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of code of
Criminal Procedure who were in total denial of the occurrence
and pleaded innocence.
16. P.W. 1 has stated that the informant (P.W-7) is the priest
of Chuto Nath temple. On 22.01.2007 at about 7 to 8 a.m., he
had gone to take bath in the Shiv ganga and there he saw that
Jago Rai and Garga Rai were fishing in Shiv ganga. When the
informant prohibited them, they tried to assault him and he fled
out of fear and informed the police about the occurrence. The
police arrived and the fish was recovered from the possession
of Jago Rai. He also deposed that Jago Rai, Garga Rai and Sonu
Rai were catching the fish and Bhutki, Madhuri and Binti had
abused Arjun Pandey- the informant.
During cross-examination, P.W. 1 had stated that the place of
occurrence pond is recorded in Khatiyan in the name of Arjun
Pandey and denied the defence suggestion that, the disputed
pond and the surrounding land belonged to Jago Rai and Arjun
Pandey was fishing and when Jago Rai prohibited, then Arjun
Pandey assaulted him.
17. P.W. 2 has deposed that on the date and place of
occurrence, he saw a crowd near the pond. Jago Rai, Garga Rai,
Madhuri , Bhutki and Binti were fishing and Arjun Pandey
arrived and prohibited them. In response, Jago Rai replied that
the pond belonged to them. Thereafter, Jago Rai took away one
-and-a-half bag of fish. This witness has also stated that the
informant called the officer in-charge and got recovered 20 KG
of fish from the room after getting opened the lock of the room
by the mother of Jago Rai and thereafter, a seizure list was
prepared on which he had put his signature. P.W. 2 had also
stated that the pond is situated at Plot No. 380 and 361 of J.B.
No. 23 which is recorded in the name of Sahdeo Pandey, but the
same was being looked after by his elder son
Arjun Pandey - the informant and that, Arjun Pandey is the
Sewak of Chuto Nath temple and the price of the fish was about
Rs. 6700/-. During his cross-examination, he stated that the net
was not seized and that he had put his signature on the seizure
list at the police station.
18. P.W. 3 stated that Jago Rai , Sonu Rai, Garga Rai and his
family members were fishing in the pond and they took away
the fishes. He also stated that the pond belonged to the
informant Arjun Pandey. In his cross-examination, he stated
that the police had not interrogated him.
19. P.W. 4 has also fully supported the prosecution case and
has stated that Shiv Ganga of Choto Nath temple was looked
after by informant Arjun Pandey and the villagers and he asked
the accused persons not to fish in the pond as it belonged to
punditji and the villagers but they did not pay any heed and
then punditji went to the police station .
20. P.W. 5 has also supported the prosecution case. He has
stated that at the time and place of occurrence, he was taking
bath in Shiv ganga of Chuto Nath temple where Jago Rai, Garga
Rai and Sonu Rai were fishing. He stated that Arjun Pandey-
the informant was prohibiting them, but Jago Rai did not pay
any heed and the accused took away a bag full of fishes which
was recovered from the shop and house of Jago Rai and that the
fish and the net were recovered from the house of Jago Rai.
21. P.W. 6 has also fully supported the prosecution case and
has stated that during time and place of occurrence, he had
gone to Shiv ganga for taking bath. He has stated that the pond
belongs to the informant and the villagers prohibited the
accused from fishing in the pond but they did not pay any
heed.
22. P.W. 7 - the informant of the case had stated that on
22.01.2007 at 07 A.M. , after offering worship in the temple, he
came out and saw that there was a crowd . When he went there,
he found that Jago Rai along with five to seven persons who
were sitting , was fishing in the pond and Sonu, Garga, Bhutki,
Madhuri and Binti were keeping the fish in the bag and were
abusing. When he prohibited them from fishing they started
abusing him and assaulting his daughter Rekha. They also
assaulted Saroj Pandey. Thereafter, he went to the police station
and submitted his written report and the Sub-Inspector of
Police arrived at the place of occurrence. The accused persons
had taken fish worth Rs. 7,000/- and the police recovered 20 KG
of fish from Veranda of Jago Rai and seized it after preparing a
seizure list and handed over the fish to him on Jimmanama. The
place of occurrence pond is situated at Plot No. 380 and 361
appertaining to J.B. No. 23 which is recorded in the name of his
father Sahdeo Pandey. He has stated that the pond is in his
possession and he had put Jeera of fish in the pond.
During his cross-examination, it was stated that Shiv ganga was
not in the name of Chuto Nath temple in the Macpherson
Settlement, but it has been shown in the name of Sewait Ramu
Pandey in Gantzer Settlement and denied the suggestion of the
defence that Jago Rai is the owner of the pond and that Jago Rai
had been putting Jeera in that pond and that he created J.B. No.
23 by forgery.
23. P.W. 8 is the investigating officer of the case. He prepared
the seizure list at the house of the accused. He recorded the
re-statement of the informant and had inspected the place of
occurrence which is Shiv ganga situated north of Chuto Nath
temple and he had seen the Jeera of fish in the pond. This
witness had recorded the statement of the witnesses and also
the defence statement of accused and submitted the charge-
sheet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the fish was
kept in the Veranda of the accused and the net was also
recovered.
24. It was the specific case of the prosecution that the place of
occurrence pond is just behind the Chuto Nath temple which is
recorded in Gantzer Settlement in the name of Sahdeo Pandey
(father of the informant) as 'Sewait' and the accused persons
forcibly took away the fish from the pond. On the other hand,
the specific case of the defence was that there are numerous
contradictions on the material points i.e. the time and place of
occurrence, manner of occurrence and seizure. It was further
the specific case of the defence that the accused Jago Rai is the
owner of the place of occurrence pond and it has been in his
possession since long. It was also alleged that the informant had
managed to enter his name in the recent survey which has been
challenged by the accused Jago Rai by filing title suit in the
court of Sub-Judge-I, Dumka bearing Title Suit No. 6 of 2010
wherein the informant Arjun Pandey was issued notice and the
same was served upon him. It was further case of the defence
that since title and possession of the place of occurrence is sub-
judice, therefore, there can be no conviction under Section 379
of Indian Penal Code and that the accused were falsely
implicated in the case.
25. This Court finds that the learned trial court was of the
view that almost all the P.W.s are eye-witnesses and they have
consistently stated that the place of occurrence belongs to the
informant and that the accused persons took away the fishes
from the pond of the informant. It has also come in evidence
that the informant prohibited them, but the accused persons did
not pay heed to him which showed their malafide intention.
The learned trial court also recorded that it has also come in
evidence that the informant was in possession of the pond in
question and that he had put Jeera of fish in the pond. Exhibits-
6 , 7 and 8 showed that the place of occurrence land was
recorded in the name of Chuto Nath temple Sewait Sahdeo
Pandey, who is the father of the informant. The learned trial
court also found that there was not only no legal right, but also
no appearance or colour of a legal right of the accused and that
the claim of the accused persons over the place of occurrence
pond was forwarded by way of suggestion to the prosecution
witnesses, but no documentary evidence in support thereof was
brought on record by the defence and just by giving suggestion
to the prosecution witnesses, the claim of the accused persons
cannot be considered to be genuine. The learned trial court also
recorded that the defence had filed Exhibit- A and on that basis,
the accused persons have tried to show that there has been
dispute between the parties over the place of occurrence land.
The learned trial court recorded that Exhibit- A merely shows
that one of the accused of the case namely Jago Rai had filed
title suit against informant of the case wherein informant was
issued notice by the court, but Exhibit- A did not show that the
dispute between the parties in the title suit was with regard to
same Shiv ganga pond or not and the learned trial court
rejected the claim of bonafide dispute of title between the
parties.
26. This Court finds that the learned trial court not only
recorded that the pond in question belonged to the informant,
but also recorded that the informant was in possession of the
pond and had also put Jeera of fish in the pond.
27. However, the learned trial court acquitted the accused
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, but convicted them
under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. The state
filed appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section
411 of Indian Penal Code and all the accused persons filed
appeal against the order of conviction under Sections 143 and
379 of Indian Penal Code.
28. The learned lower appellate court found that the P.W. 1
had stated that only accused Jago Rai and Garga Rai were
fishing from the pond with net and he had not stated about the
occurrence of assault and that P.W. 2 had stated that the
accused persons were getting fish from the pond forcibly
whereas, P.W. 3 had stated that the accused persons were
fishing from the pond forcibly and thus, found that the
evidence of those witnesses are contradictory to each other on
the point of fishing from the pond by the accused persons.
29. The learned lower appellate court also recorded that all
the accused persons were fishing from the pond claiming the
pond to be their own being the ancestors of the recorded tenant,
whereas, P.W. - 5 had stated that only accused Jago Rai, Garga
Rai and Sonu Rai were fishing from the pond. On the point of
title and possession of the pond, the learned lower appellate
court recorded its finding in para 5, which is quoted as under:
"5.Evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both
the parties, it is apparent that 'Chutonath Temple' is in village
Gadi Chuto and there is a pond by the side of temple which is
commonly known as Shiv Ganga at the Plot no. 380, 361 within
J.B. No. 23 in village Gadi Chuto, and the pond is recorded in
Gantzer Settlement in the name of 'Chutonath Temple', and
Sahdev Pandey as 'Sewait' of the temple, and the pond was
recorded in the name of ancestor of the accused persons in
Macpherson Settlement, and informant is claiming the land and
pond of temple being the 'Sewait' of temple, and on the other hand
accused persons are claiming the said pond as the successor of the
recorded tenant as per Macpherson Settlement. It is fact that
Gantzer Settlement has been done about 70 years ago, and the
name of informant was recorded for the said pond as 'Sewait' of
the temple, but informant could not show or explain as to how this
pond has been recorded as Shiv Ganga in the last survey
settlement and his name as 'Sewait' of the temple. While the
disputed P.O. land of plot no. 380, 361 is jamabandi land and
non-transferable land, and it is fact that the informant does not
come from the successor of the recorded tenant of pond as
mentioned in Macpherson Settlement while accused persons are
the successor of said recorded tenant. It is fact that the said pond is
recorded as Shiv Ganga, and thus it belong to village community
including the accused persons and the informant is a 'Sewait' only
who cannot claim the said pond as his personal property. From
Ext. A I find that a title suit was going on between the parties filed
by the accused persons in Sub Judge Court, Dumka and it has
been filed in the year , 2010 after the said occurrence, and from the
evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 it
reveals that accused persons were fishing from the said pond
forcibly claiming the said pond as their own being the ancestor of
recorded tenant of Macpherson Settlement, and informant could
not show and/or produced any document in this regard to show
that how the said pond was recorded as Shiv Ganga, and his name
has been recorded in the Gantzer Settlement with regard to the
disputed pond. Under the circumstance it is apparent that accused
persons are claiming the said pond and fish from the pond under a
bonafide claim of right, and it is good defence. And Hon'ble Court
has established the law that if there is bonafide claim of right over
the disputed land and property it does not fall within the
occurrence of theft and accused deserves acquittal. The defence has
also placed reliance on this score on a decision of Apex Court
reported in AIR 1995 SC 585. Going through those decisions I
finds that establish law of the Apex Court is applicable in this
case."
30. The learned lower appellate court found that the accused
persons are claiming the pond and the fish under a bonafide
claim of right which is a good defence and was of the view that
if there is a bonafide claim of right over the disputed land and
property, it does not fall within the occurrence of theft and the
accused persons deserved to be acquitted. The learned lower
appellate court has also recorded that the pond is recorded as
Shiv ganga and it belongs to the village community including
the accused persons and the informant is Sewait only who
cannot claim the said pond as his personal property. The
learned lower appellate court upon considering the materials
on record also recorded that it is fact that Gantzer Settlement
has been done about 70 years ago, and the name of informant
was recorded for the said pond as 'Sewait' of the temple, but
informant could not show or explain as to how this pond has
been recorded as Shiv Ganga in the last survey settlement and
his name as 'Sewait' of the temple. While the disputed P.O. land
of plot nos. 380, 361 is jamabandi land and non-transferable
land, and it is fact that the informant does not come from the
successor of the recorded tenant of pond as mentioned in
Macpherson Settlement while accused persons are the successor
of said recorded tenant. Thus, the learned lower appellate court
had expressed doubt about the claim of title and possession by
the informant.
31. This Court finds that so far as acquittal of the accused
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the
learned trial court had acquitted the accused after appreciation
of evidence including seizure list witness and although the
State had filed appeal against the order of acquittal under
Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, but the learned lower
appellate court gave consistent finding of acquittal of the
accused under Section 411 of Indian Penal code. This Court
finds that so far as the acquittal under Section 411 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, there are consistent findings based on
materials available on record and due appreciation of evidence
by both the learned courts below and during the course of
argument no perversity or illegality has been pointed out by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on this
point and accordingly, the order of acquittal under Section 411
of the Indian Penal Code passed by both the learned courts
below do not call for any interference.
32. So far as the offence under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian
Penal Code is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial
court had convicted the accused although the specific case of
the accused was that there are material contradictions in the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses and they had also
submitted that there was bonafide land dispute between the
parties. This Court also finds that one of the witnesses from the
side of the prosecution i.e. P.W. 4 had stated that the disputed
pond in question was looked after by the informant and the
villagers. This Court finds that though a summon issued in
connection with one title suit between the parties was exhibited
from the side of the defence as Exhibit- A , but the learned trial
court found that the same did not disclose that the litigation
was in connection with the pond or not. However, fact remains
that it has come during the trial that the accused were also
claiming the property through their ancestors though no
documentary evidence was produced before the learned court
below and the same was put during evidence by way of
suggestion. The learned trial court, while recording that the
informant was in possession of the pond in question, did not
consider that one of the witnesses of the prosecution i.e. P.W. 4
had stated that the pond was being looked after by the
informant and the villagers. This Court finds that the learned
lower appellate court considered the evidences on record and
upon appreciation of the materials on record, found that the
informant was claiming the property on the basis of Gantzer
Settlement and was claiming to be Sewait of the pond and
temple and on the other hand, the accused were claiming the
pond as successor of the recorded tenant as per Macpherson
Settlement. The learned appellate court also considered the
contradiction in the evidences and ultimately acquitted the
accused of offence under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal
Code. This court is of the considered view that in case of land
dispute regarding title and available evidence on record
regarding possession of the disputed pond by the informant as
well as the villagers (evidence of P.W-4) , particularly when the
property is recorded as Sewait property in the last survey
settlement, that too without any explanation from the side of
the informant as to how it was so recorded, read with the
contradictions in the evidences in totality as recorded by the
learned lower appellate court, no case under Sections 143 and
379 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused /
opposite parties. This court finds that the view taken by the
leaned lower appellate court while acquitting the opposite
parties of offence under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal
Code is certainly one of the possible views based on evidences
on record and accordingly the judgment passed by the learned
lower appellate court on this point does not suffer from any
perversity or illegality.
33. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the
judgement passed by the learned lower appellate court
acquitting the accused persons for offence under Sections 143
and 379 of Indian Penal Code and affirming the order of
acquittal under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code does not call
for any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction.
34. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby
dismissed.
35. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
36. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
