Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]d.g.r. patnaik, j.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner jharkhand state housing board while claiming the ownership over the disputed lands on the ground that after the land was acquired by the bihar state housing board, the same was transferred in favour of the jharkhand state housing board after the creation of state of jharkhand, have prayed for a direction to the respondent state authorities to give due protection to the petitioner housing board against the attempted encroachments of the disputed lands by the respondent no. 5.3. from the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 5 it appears that a definite stand has been taken by the respondent no. 5 asserting that he is the grandson of the recorded raiyat and the lands have been coming in his peaceful possession and occupation ever since the time of his ancestors and the lands have been mutated in the revenue records in his name and he has been continuously paying rent to the government. the respondent no. 5 has relied upon the revenue records as also the rent receipts in support of his claim of possession over the lands.4. learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 would inform that the pleading of the petitioner that the land was acquired in an acquisition proceeding, appears to be misleading because even in the land acquisition proceeding there appears no reference to the plot no. 424 of khata no. 8 which bears the description of the present disputed land and as a matter of fact, it is this aspect of the case of the respondent no. 5 that was looked into by the sub-divisional magistrate in the proceeding under section 144 cr.p.c. and the proceeding was dropped in favour of the respondent no. 5.5. upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the documents on record, i find that both the parties have claimed their respective right, title and interest over the disputed lands. the grievance of the petitioner is against the alleged act of trespass made by the respondent no. 5 over the lands in question whereas the claim of the respondent no. 5 is that he has been continuously coming in peaceful possession over the disputed lands ever since the time of his ancestors. apparently, the controversy involves disputed questions of facts. even otherwise, if the petitioner housing board is aggrieved by the alleged act of trespass over the disputed lands by the respondent no. 5, the appropriate remedy available to them is under the bihar public land encroachment act and another analogous laws. the invocation of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court for preventing the respondent no. 5 from the alleged trespassing of the land in question, appears to be misconceived. i am satisfied that this writ application is not maintainable. as such, this application is dismissed. if the petitioner feels aggrieved, he would be at liberty to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum, if the law so permits.