MITU @ RABINDRA SUAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision the petitioners assail order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in S.T. Case No. 108/2008 framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 427, 294, 506/34, I.P.C, and Sections 3(1)(v) of S.C., and S.T. (PA) Act.

(2.) THE petitioners have no grievance so far as framing of charge under the Penal Sections of I.P.C. is concerned. Their only grievance is that no offence under Section 3(1)(v) of S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act is made out, and therefore, the charge could not be framed against them for the said offence.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no land particular etc., over which the house in question stands, has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and that during investigation the Investigating Officer found that the informant has purchased only Ac.0.02 decs. 1 kadi of land in three plots from khata No. 280, i.e., Ac.0.01 dec. 1 kadi in plot No. 348, 4 kadis in plot No. 360 and 6 kadis in plot No. 361 from the previous owner, Narayan Prasad Das, on 5.5.1999 and got it mutated in his name, and that out of the said khata and plots, the rest part of the land, i.e., major portion extending to AC.1 .71 decs. 9 kadis has been purchased by Balaram Suar, the father of petitioner No.1, from the original owner, Narayan Prasad Das on 3.5.2006. This fact has been mentioned in the Case Diary itself dated 3.8.2007. It is also mentioned therein that on demarcation of land by Balaram Suar, it was found that the informant had encroached some portion of his land. That apart, the, location of the plots of the informant is different. It is further mentioned that in view of the dispute with regard to ownership and possession over the land, a civil suit has been filed, which is sub -judice. It is also mentioned that the present occurrence took place when the 'complainant's sons were trying to repair a shed on the disputed land.