Patna High Court
Dodi Mahto & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 December, 2013
Author: Anjana Prakash
Bench: Anjana Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.190 of 2001
(Appeal against the Judgment and order of conviction dated
8/9.5.2001passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 279 of 1996/142 of 1996.) ===========================================================
1. Dodi Mahto
2. Gariban Mahto
3. Basudeo Mahto @ Basdeo Mahto
4. Fulay Mahto @ Fulai Mahto
5. Lakhan Mahto
6. Balak Mahto All sons of late Etabari Mahto, resident of village Nawada Bigha, P.S. Atari, Distt. Gaya.
.... .... Appellant/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ramdhani Manjhi, son of Brihaspati Manjhi, resident of village Jota Tola, Nawada Bigha, P.S. Atari, Distt. Gaya.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy 'Raman', A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-12-2013 Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and 3(x) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereas the Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and two years respectively. The rest of the Appellants have been sentenced to one year and 1 ½ years respectively by a Judgment and order of conviction dated 8/9.5.2007 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 279 of 1996/142 of 1996.
2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.190 of 2001 dt.09-12-2013 2/4
2. The case of the Complainant Ramdhani Manjhi is that there was a certain piece of land which was recorded in the name of his father and he was also depositing rent for the same. He had built a house made of mud over the said Plot and living there with their family members since a long time. On 2.6.1996 at about 8.00 A.M., all the accused persons came and committed mischief and demolished the house and removed the articles of the house.
4. During Trial, the accused persons were put on Trial and they denied the charges with the plea that in fact, they have been implicated for reasons of land dispute.
5. During Trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the Prosecution. PW-1 Kailash Rajwanshi is an eye witness who stated that on the date of occurrence, when he was going to the field, he saw the accused persons entering the house of the Complainant hurling abuses and acting in a high handed manner. They then demolished the house and committed theft of the household articles. It was suggested by him that in the year 1996, there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. between him and the Appellant Dodo Mahto. He, admitted that Appellant No. 1 Dodi Mahto had filed a Title Suit No. 354 of 1994 wherein he was arrayed as Defendant. It is admitted that the accused persons were claiming possession over the said land.
6. P.W.- 2 Shiv Balak Rajwanshi is another eye witness who
3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.190 of 2001 dt.09-12-2013 3/4 supported the factum of occurrence as disclosed by PW-1.
7. PW-3 Ramdhani Manjhi repeated the manner of occurrence as given out by him in the Complaint. He, however, admitted that a Title Suit with respect to the same land was pending between the parties and the accused persons were always directing him to give up the said land since it belonged to them. PW 4 - 6 are formal witnesses.
8. The Defence examined two witnesses both of whom are formal in nature.
9. Having gone through the documents with respect to the land in question, the learned counsel the Appellants submits that when the land dispute is admitted, the occurrence appears to have taken place on account of assertion of civil right without any Criminal intent.
10. In such circumstances, the conviction of Appellants of having formed an assembly is unjustifiable in law. Also, no offence under the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is made out, inasmuch as, the act of the Appellants was not spurred on the basis of any caste and it appears on account of a pure Civil Dispute. Hence, the Appellants deserve to be acquitted.
11. Having considered the submission raised on behalf of the Appellants, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to them in the facts of the case.
12. Hence, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.190 of 2001 dt.09-12-2013 4/4 sentence dated 8/9.5.2001 passed against the Appellants by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 279 of 1996/142 of 1996, is, hereby, set aside.
13. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.
(Anjana Prakash, J) Patna High Court, Patna.
Dated, the 9th December,2013 NAFR/S.Ali