Jharkhand High Court
Mansha Marandi & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2012
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 454 of 2004
1. Mansha Marandi
2. Jogindra Marandi
3. Paresh Marandi
4. Naresh Marandi
5. Munga Marandi ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioners :Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo
For the State :Mr. Md. Hatim, A. P.P.
-----
03/01.11.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1989, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 26.08.1989 passed by Sri S. Ansari, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, in G. R. Case No. 326 of 1982 / T. R. No. 160 of 1989, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offences under Sections 379, 143 IPC, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court with modification of the sentence.
3. From perusal of the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, it appears that the petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the IPC for harvesting away the paddy crop by forming unlawful assembly from the land of the informant. It also appears from the impugned Judgments that the disputed land is plot No. 379 having an area of 14 acres, portion of which was settled with both the parties. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences under Sections 379 and 143 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 379 IPC and RI for three months under Section 143 of the IPC and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court has set aside the sentence passed by the Trial Court below, giving the petitioners the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing them to enter into the probation bonds of Rs. 1000/- each with one surety, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to appear in the Court to receive sentence if called in the mean time, and they were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 200/- each for the loss caused to the complainant.
5. From perusal of the impugned Judgments, it is apparent that the defence had also proved the documents in the Court below to show that the 2 portion of the land in question was settled in their favour and there was dispute of demarcation between both the parties. The documents were also proved to show that the final order was passed for demarcation of the disputed land by the competent Court, but the actual demarcation had not been done. It further appears from the impugned Judgments that the I. O. was not examined in the trial and the defence had taken the plea that non-examination of the I.O., had seriously prejudiced the defence, so far as the identification of the land of the parties, as also the contradiction in the evidence brought on record, are concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned Judgments clearly show that there was bona fide land dispute between the parties and the documents were brought on record to show that the lands were settled to both the parties and there was dispute between the parties for demarcation of the land in question for which the competent Court had also passed the order, but the actual demarcation had not been done. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of the bona fide land dispute between the parties, the petitioners aught to have been given at least the benefit of doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Trial Court below has passed the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence against the petitioners on the basis of the cogent evidence brought on record. As such, there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgments worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
8. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, it is apparent that there is bona fide land dispute between the parties, in as much as, both the parties were settled the land in the same plot and there was dispute of demarcation between the parties. The order passed by the competent Court for the demarcation of the land was proved by the defence. Thus, from the evidence discussed in the impugned Judgments, it is apparent that there was bona fide land dispute between the parties and I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the petitioners were at least entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offences under Sections 379, 143 IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the Judgment dated 26.08.1989 passed by Sri S. Ansari, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, in G. R. Case No. 326 of 1982 / T. R. No. 160 of 1989, as also the Judgment dated 25.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1989 are, hereby, set 3 aside and the petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge.
10. This revision application is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.
(H. C. Mishra, J) Umesh/-