Birendra Sharma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2218 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL REVISION No.1052 of 2017
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1878 Year-2009 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE
                                        District- Saharsa
     ======================================================

Birendra Sharma S/o Late Baleshwar Sharma, Resident of Village- Bishanpur P.S.- Mahishi, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Ghuran Sharma @ Ghuran Bhadhai.

3. Raj Kishor Sharma @ Raj Kishor Badhai.

Both Sons of Late Dilo Sharma, Resident of Village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Mahishi, Dist.- Saharsa.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

The present criminal revision application has been filed

for setting aside the order dated 15.07.2017 passed by Sessions

Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appl. No. 11 of 2017 arising out of

Complaint Case No. 1878c of 2009 by which the order of

A.C.J.M., Saharsa convicted opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under

Section 379 of the I.P.C. by which they have been imposed of

sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.

1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default of fine one Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1052 of 2017 dt.09-05-2023

month Simple Imprisonment was set aside the conviction and

sentence of the O.P. No.2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner purchased the land on 18.7.2007 total area 36.3

decimals of land and jamabandi was also created in his name.

He submits that he has cultivated the said land but paddy crop

was cut down by the opposite party no. 2 for which he filed

complaint case, in which conviction was imposed by the Trial

Court under Section 379 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the Appellate Court has taken the reason

that:

"after perusal of exhibits the right, title and

possession of the appellants is acceptable at least for indicating

that the right and title of the complainant over the land in

question require adjudication determining his possession at the

relevant time. On this account I do not find it safe to rely on the

right, title ad interest of the complainant over the plot which is

P.O. but this fact has not been appreciated by the learned court

below causing unfareness and injustice. On the other hand, I

find that oral evidence of the witnesses have been formally

considered without taking pains even to examine merit of the

witnesses in support of the complainant. It is well laid principle Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1052 of 2017 dt.09-05-2023

that whole evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be

considered by the court below just to find out whether they are

reasonable and substantiated the charge. On account of

discussions, I find learned court below has immensely erred

with a result he has recorded absurd finding requiring

interference from this court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

petitioner is the purchaser of the land and jamabandi in his

name, therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Appellate Court

is not correct and bad in law and the appellate order is declared

illegal and the said order may be set aside.

Upon hearing the parties and going through the records,

there are certain things which are admitted, the first is that the

land does not belong to petitioner by way of succession rather

he is purchaser of the land and there is a civil suit pending

between the petitioner and the opposite party and only due to

this reason the Appellate Court has narrated in the order sheet

that the right, title and possession is the subject of the

adjudication and without determining the same the ingredient of

Section 379 of the Indian Panel Code cannot be fulfilled and it

shall further affect the rights of the parties at the time of

deciding the civil dispute.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1052 of 2017 dt.09-05-2023

In this background, this Court is not inclined to interfere

in this case and the present Cr. Revision application is hereby

dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date