NETAL DAS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisional applications have been heard together as they arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mid -nanore in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1974. The application No. 725 before this Court has been filed by Netai Das. Go -peswar Kali, Nagen SenaDati and Chitta -ranjan Shit, the accused persons, against the judgment by which they have beea acauitted of the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but the eonvio -tipn under Section 143. Indian Penal Code was confirmed and the order of sentence passed against them has also been upheld. In the other Appln. No. 837 of 1974 the informant at whose instance the case was started has sought to set aside the order of acquittal Dassed bv the aDPellate court below.

(2.) IN short, the case of the prosecution was that the accused persons alone with many others formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of reaping the paddy from the land of Radha -bai Rathi and thereafter actuallv took awav the paddy from her land. The accused persons wanted to say that thty. were not guilty and that as they supported the cause of one Tajuddin, a bargadar under Radhabai, the false case was started. The allegation about unlawful assembly for the theft of paddy has been denied. The learned Magistrate after trial found Netai Das and three others, the petitioners before this Court in the Application No. 725, guilty under Sectiomv 379, Indian Penal Code and also undan Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and he sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - on each count and in default they are to suffer rigorous imprjsonnuatt for one month on each count of charges.

(3.) WITH regard to the order of ao -auittal in respect of the charge undm Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, it has been submitted by Mr. N. C. Banerjee that the learned Sessions Judged to appreciate the evidence on and the principles of law involved therein and that his finding that the case under Section 379, Indian Penal Code for the theft of paddy belonging to Rathl has not been proved is most unreasonable and perverse in yiew of the evidence on record. For this purpose I have been taken, through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also the evidence of the witnesses. In a revisional application against the order of acquittal, the High Court will not interfere with the finding of the fact unless it is unreasonable or perverse or without evidence. The question would be before this Court whether or not for coming to the impugned decision the learned Court below acted without jurisdiction or failed to apply proper law in the matter. From the Judgment it appears that the learned Sessions Judge discussed the evidence of all the witnesses one after another and considered the circumstances of this case and after discussion he found that the witnesses who sought to prove the theft of paddy did not specifically sav from which of the plots belonging to Rathi the paddy was actually stolen away. He was not satisfied as to the identity of the plot from which paddy was taken away. Moreover, there was the evidence that during the relevant period there was no paddy on the land of Rathi in the village Choulisole. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge had a reasonable doubt as to the taking away of the paddy of Rathi from her land in Choulisole. Practically speaking as the witnesses could not specify the actual plot of land from which the paddy has been alleged to have been taken away the learned Sessions Judge could not come to a final decision as to whether or not there was the theft of paddy. I do not think in view of the facts and circumstances that the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is unreasonable.