ARKHITA SWAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARAKHITA Swain (Petitioner) and his wife Rahasa (accused No. 2) and his son Jogi (accused No. 3) were tried under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted the wife and the son, but convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to R.I. for 6 months. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Prosecution case is that Narasingha Mohapatra (p.w. 1) was the bhagchasi of the disputed land under Kandhum (p.w. 3) the mother of the Petitioner. In a family partition the disputed land had been allotted to the share of p.w. 3 who was in possession through the bhagchasi p.w. 1. On 20.10 -1970 Bauri Swain (p.w. 2), another son of p.w. 3, and p.w. 3 sold the disputed land by a registered sale deed to p.w. 1. On 28 -11.1970 the Petitioner with others forcibly cut and removed the unripe paddy. The defence was one of complete denial In other words, the Petitioner does not claim that he was in possession, and grew the crop. He also denies to have removed the crop p.w.s. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were examined on the question of possession. Both the Courts have concurrently found that p.w. 1 grew the crop on the disputed land as a bhagchasi under p.w. 3 and the Petitioner forcibly cut and removed the unripe paddy. Mr. Sen for the Petitioner took me through the evidence. After having gone through them I am satisfied that the finding is unassailable.

(2.) MR . Sen contended that the prosecution story that the disputed land fell to the share of p.w. 3 is disproved by the fact that the sale deed was executed by both p.ws. 2 and 3 and the non -production of the partition deed and that the land being joint family land, the Petitioner committed no offence even if he removed the paddy and that the dispute is a bonafide one.

(3.) ON the aforesaid analysis, the conviction is well founded.