KRUSHAN BHUYAN AND ORS. Vs. GURUBARI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners had been convicted under Section 447, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/ - each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. Petitioner No. 1 had been further convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week. During the pendency of this revision petition, Petitioner No. 1 died and his name was struck off.

(2.) THE opposite party Gurubari Naik who was the complainant in the trial Court is the Ex.Choukidar of Mouza. Chhachina. It is the prosecution case that after the abolition of the choukidari system, the opposite party was given a lease by Government in respect of one acre of land out of Anabadi Plot No. 1633 of that village. Sometime in the year 1963 on 15.9.1965, when the opposite party and his sons were ploughing the land, the Petitioners are alleged to have gone over the land and obstructed them form ploughing the same. On the protest by the opposite party, the deceased Petitioner Krushna Bhuyan is alleged to have given him a push. The defence plea is a denial of the occurrence. According to the Petitioners, the disputed land is a gopher land of the village and has never been possessed or outvoted by the opposite party. It is not disputed that plot No. 1633 which, according to p.w. 5, has an area. of 5 to 7 adores is the Gochar land of the village. But the Courts below accepted the prosecution case that one acre out of this land was granted on lease to the complainant. On the further finding that on the date of occurrence, the Petitioners entered upon the land and prevented the complainant and his sons from ploughing it, they convicted the Petitioners under Section 447, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY plot No. 1633 is the Gochar land of the village Chhachina. This land according to the Amin measures 5 to 7 adores. The Amin does not remember which one acre out of this plot had been leased out to the opp. party. The villagers of Chhachina were interested in the gochar land of the village and this fact is recognised by the learned Sessions Judge in his appellate order. There is no evidence to show that the one acre of land said to have been leased out to the complainant had been clearly demarcated. It was suggested to the complainant a suggestion which he however denied that the villagers bad petitioned to the Collector to cancel the lease. All that is alleged against the Petitioners is that they having gone over the land only prevented the complainant and his sons from cultivating it. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the dominant intention of the Petitioners was to insult or annoy the complainant. Their intention appears to be to prevent cultivation of the land which admittedly was the Gochar land of the village.