RAMCHANDRA GOVINDRAO PACHGHARE Vs. NARAYAN SITARAMJI ADHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original complainant is the appellant here. He is aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge setting aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. The fifteen accused were prosecuted by the appellant. They were charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 427 and 435, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that all of them were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object of dispossessing the complainant from the disputed field on April 20, 1966 at village Ashti, they came and caused damage by setting fire to the hut of the complainant with an intention to cause damage to his property. One Narayan Deshmukh of village Ashti was the owner of Section No. 391 admeasuring 10.35 acres. The complainant purchased 6 acres out of this land by three successive sale -deeds in the year 1959 and took possession of the same. Narayan Deshmukh was left with only 4.35 acres of Section No. 391. It appears the vendor again by two more isar chit his dated February 25, 1964 and July 2, 1964 agreed to sell this land 4.35 acres to the complainant and that actually put him in possession of this land. These two isar chit his were for a sum of Rs. 4,350 out of which it is said Rs. 3,600 were paid to the vendor as earnest money. Instead of executing a regular sale -deed, the vendor Narayan Deshmukh decided to sell the field at a higher price to somebody else. He, therefore, executed a sale -deed of this disputed land 4.35 acres in favour of accused No. 1 Narayan Adhe for a sum of Rs. 6,000 on March 15, 1965. The result of this sale -deed was a dispute between Narayan Adhe accused No. 1 and the complainant. Each began to say that he was in possession of this land 4.35 acres. Because there was apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were held. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate passed an order holding that the possession was with accused No. 1. The complainant, therefore, filed a revision application and took a stay of warrant of possession. It was granted on April 27, 1966.

(2.) IT appears a civil suit was filed in respect of the disputed property and that civil suit is pending.

(3.) THE defence of the accused is that accused No. 1 Narayan Adhe was in possession of the disputed land because he had purchased the same from Narayan Deshmukh and also took possession of it. All the accused except accused No. 14 admit their presence. At the relevant time accused Nos. 6 to 13 and 15 had gone there as labourers of accused No. 1. The allegation of all the accused is that Motiram, the son of the complainant, had set fire to the hut in order to bring accused No. 1 in trouble. According to them, therefore, the complainant and his son Motiram had falsely implicated them.