Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

The State Of Bihar vs Baleshwar Tanti &Amp; Ors on 4 April, 2011

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           G. APP. (SJ) No.5 of 2010
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                     Versus
                             BALESHWAR TANTI & ORS
                                  -----------

06.   04.04.2011

. After having heard Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Sri Prakash Mahto, learned respondent nos.2 to 9, the limitation in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned by allowing I.A.No.2350 of 2010 and after having gone through the judgment impugned herein what this court finds is that there was a dispute for a particular land for which the parties had litigated in the lower courts and the second appeal was pending before this Court.

                              It     is    admitted        that      no   court       had

                    passed    any    order      injuncting           either      of    the

sides from going over the piece of land. The prosecution case was that the accused persons went over the disputed land and uprooted the few paddy plants from the field and when that was objected to, they abused and assaulted the informant.

                              The         court        below          has,        after

                    considering       the       evidence        on     record         both
                          2




        documentary      and    oral   including    those   which

indicated the story of litigation between the parties in respect of plot nos.355, 368, 370 under Khata no.59 and plot no.77 under khata no.355, has gone on to hold that it was not possible to hold that the accused persons were the aggressors rather they were acting under bona fide belief that they went over the land to exercise their right of possession. This appears the view which could also be taken on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

If two views are possible and if the view which has been taken by the trial court was also one of the possible views, then in that view the judgment of acquittal has never to be interfered with.

In the result, this appeal appears meritless and the same is dismissed.

B.Kr.                         ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)