HARI SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants were convicted by the trial court under Section 447 I.P.C. and were sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun. Their appeal was dismissed and their conviction was maintained. They have now filed the present revision.

(2.) THE dispute in this case relates to certain plots Theekkoo, Katkoo and Jhangutia, who were the complainants, alleged that they had been in possession of these plots and had sown maize, paddy and kangni crops in them and that on the 27th April, 1953 the applicants without any right cut the above crops to the extent of 25 maunds of paddy, 1 maund of kangni and 10 seers of maize. The complaint was filed on the 27th April, 1953 that is on the same day the crop was said to have been cut by the accused.

(3.) THE applicants produced copies of several judgments in which their possession over the disputed plots had been upheld by the revenue court. They also filed extracts from the village papers in which their names were entered over these plo:ts. Besides the above evidence they also examined some witnesses. The complainants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their possession. They also examined some witnesses in order to prove their possession over the disputed plots. The lower courts brushed aside the judgments of the revenue court on the ground that they related to the period prior to 27th April, 1953 and were, therefore, not sufficient to prove the possession of the accused on the date in question. The revenue papers in which the names of the accused were entered over the plots in dispute was discarded on the ground that the person who had made the entries therein was not examined as a witness. It was also held that though the entries were in the name of the accused that fact by itself did not prove that the accused were in actual possession of the plots. Relying on the evidence of two of the prosecution witnesses who were considered independent the lower courts found in favour of the complainants that they were in possession of the disputed plots.