Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 250 of 2006 --------- 1.Vivekanand Mahto, S/o Late Yugal Kishore Mahto 2.Pratham Mahto, S/o Narain Mahto 3.Deven Mahto, S/o Narain Mahto 4.Karam Mahto, S/o Late Kamal Nath Mahto 5.Anand Mahto, S/o Late Tika Ram Mahto All residents of village Lota, P.S. Silli, District- Ranchi ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs Niki Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate --------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- C.A.V. on 09/11/2017 Pronounced on 19/12/2017 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. H.K. Mahto, learned counsel for the Informant. This application is directed against the judgment dated 10.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C. XTH), Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 1992 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.05.1992 passed in G.R. Case No. 705 of 1983 (T.R. No. 516 of 1992) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for two months and eighteen months respectively has been affirmed. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had sown wheat in Plot No. 2345 at Village Lota P.S. Silli. It is alleged that in a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. the possession of the informant was declared on 10.12.1982. Further allegation has been levelled that the accused persons had harvested the wheat. Based on the aforesaid allegations Silli P.S. Case No. 18/1983 was instituted in which after investigation charge -2- sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and trial proceeded. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Ashirwad Razwar is an eye-witness who has stated that on the date of occurrence when he was returning to his village and when he reached near the canal he saw the accused persons cutting wheat. In cross-examination he has stated that the P.O. land bearing Plot no. 2345, Khata No. 309, Area 5.85 acres was recorded in the name of Mohan Lal Mahto in the survey Khatian. He has also stated that earlier civil litigations were fought between the parties but possession was never declared in favour of Narain Mahto and others. He has stated that the informant was cultivating the land in question since long and earlier his father was in cultivating possession. P.W.2 Somela Mahto has stated that the land is in possession of the informant since the time of his grandfather. He has also stated that when he had gone to see his own land he had seen the accused persons cutting wheat in the land of the informant. P.W.3 Gobardhan Mahto is an eye-witness who had seen the incident of cutting wheat by the accused which was grown by the informant. P.W.4 Mohanlal Mahto is the informant who has stated that the land bearing Plot No. 2345 appertaining to Khata No. 309, area 5.85 acres situated at village-Lota, belonged to him. He has stated that after vesting of Zamindari in the year, 1956 the rent of the entire land was fixed in his name and form ‘M’ was also issued in his favour. He has stated that no appeal was preferred against the fixation of rent. He had preferred an appeal against the order of Circle Officer issuing canal tax in the name of Yugal Kishore Mahto and he had succeeded in the appeal. He has further stated that the accused persons had filed a civil suit with respect to the same land which was withdrawn by them. This witness has also stated that the accused persons were convicted for murdering his mother on the disputed land. He has also stated that possession was declared in his favour in a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. He had also received compensation for acquisition of his land by the State Government for constructing the canal. This -3- witness has supported the occurrence regarding taking away of wheat by the accused persons. P.W.5 Raghunandan Prasad is the Investigating Officer who has proved the place of occurrence and after completing investigation had submitted charge sheet. P.W.6 Narsingh Mahto and P.W.7 Kalicharan Pandey are the formal witnesses. The defence had examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. D.W.1 Sukhdeo Mahto is a formal witness. D.W.2 Ganpat Mahto has disclosed that the accused Anand Mahto at the relevant point of time was staying in his lodge. D.W.3 Dilip Mahto and D.W.4 Shrikant Mahto have stated about the possession of the land by the accused persons. D.W.5 Chintamani Singh is a formal witness. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a bona fide land dispute between the parties as such no case u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that D.W.3 and D.W.4 had stated about the possession of the accused over the land in question but the defence evidence has not been given due weightage by the learned courts below. It has also been submitted that the petitioner no. 5 was not present in the place of occurrence and his alibi has been established by the evidence of D.W.2. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. It appears from the evidence on record that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the cutting and taking away of paddy crops by the accused persons. Overwhelming documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the title and possession of the informant over the land in question. The oral and documentary evidence has thus proved beyond doubt that the land belonged to the informant over which he had grown wheat but the accused persons had taken away the wheat and thus had committed an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Although the defence had produced purcha and water tax form in favour of Yugal Kishore Mahto but P.W.4 had clearly stated that the issuance of canal -4- tax in favour of Yugal Kishore Mahto has been set aside in appeal. Thus the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offences u/s 143/379 of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed in appeal and the same is, hereby, sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which have been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1983 and have also remained for some time in custody. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-