GEDDA RAMINAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Adnhra Pradesh high Court convicting the appellants under Section 148 IPC to one year R. I., Appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 395/397 to 7 years R. I. and Appellants Nos. 4 to 12 under Section 395 to 5 years R. I. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that having regard to the proved facts of the case the appellants could not be said to have committed any offence under Sec. 395 or 397 IPC because they sought merely to assert a bona fide claim of right in fishing in the tank which they believed to belong to the Government. The concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, viz., Sessions Judge and the High Court, which are based on a fair and complete consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution is that the Tank in question belonged to private persons viz., the complainants which was leased out to them from year to year. During the period the occurrence PW-6 was the person to whom the tank was leased. According to the prosecution as many as 400 persons variously armed with deadly weapons came to the tank, tried forcibly to take away fishes from the tank and when the witnesses protested they were threatened with dire consequences and even with the fear of death if they tried to interfere with the act of the theft sought to be committed by the appellants. The courts below have accepted the prosecution case in toto. The appellants have not produced a single document to show that the tank belonged to the Government or that there was any iota of evidence to support the appellants' stand that they had any bona fide claim to the tank. It is well settled that the question of bona fide claim of right arises only where the accused show to the courts satisfaction that their belief is reasonable and is based on some documents or title, however, weak it may be.

(3.) In the instant case, however, the appellants sought to fish in the tank by sheer force of arms. For these reasons we are unable to agree with the counsel for the appellants that the case of dacoity has not been made out or that the case would only be one of simple theft.