BRAHMA NAIK Vs. RAM KUMAR AGARWALLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case is that the informant Brahma Naik was given possession of the disputed lands in a proceeding under Section 145. Cr. P. C., to which Ram Kumar Agarwalla, opposite party No. 1 was a party. Possession was given on 10 -12 -1968 and Brahma Naik continued in possession and raised paddy crops on that land. On 16 -11 -1969 accused Ram Kumar Agarwalla and ten other persons employed in the rice -mill came in a body and removed the paddy sheaves which had been cut and were about to be taken away by the petitioner and his men. causing grievous injuries by fracturing Brahma Naik's left wrist and other injuries to Nrupa Naik son of Brahma Naik. The defence of Ram Kumar Agarwalla was that the informant Brahma Naik was illegally cutting paddy from Ram Kumar's land and on his protest Brahma Naik left the place after creating some disturbance. The paddy was grown by Ram Kumar Agarwalla on his own land and accordingly he lodged protest when Brahma Naik tried to remove the same. The case was originally tried by Shri V. V. R. Sharma, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bangarh. He had examined about seven witnesses. As he was transferred the case was subsequently taken up by Sri N. Sengupta. On the demand of the accused, there was a de novo trial. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after examining the materials on record gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons and recorded an order of acquittal. It is against the judgment dated 8 -5 -1972 that this Criminal Revision has been filed. As to the jurisdiction and power of this Court in a Criminal Revision against an acquittal, there has been series of Supreme Court decisions. Its ambit is very narrow as would appear from Sec, 439(4) Cr. P. C. itself. It lays down that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In : [1963]3SCR412 (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) their Lordships observed thus in paragraph 7:

(2.) MR . Mohanti for the petitioner raised two contentions:

(3.) THE second contention is equally without substance. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined the question whether the accused removed the paddy from the land belonging to the informant or from his own land. After some discussion, though somewhat unsatisfactory, the reached the ultimate conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that paddy was removed by the accused from the land belonging to the informant. The finding is based on assessment of evidence. However unsatisfactory that finding may be. the High Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere with such a finding in revision against acquittal. There is no criticism that the finding is based on inadmissible evidence or has excluded from consideration admissible evidence. It is a question of assessment of evidence, and as has already been said, law is well settled that the High Court is not to interfere where the judgment is based purely on assessment of evidence in a revision against acquittal.