ANTARYAMI SATPATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were put on trial under Sections 143 and 379, Indian Penal Code thp trial court convicted them under both the sections and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs 60 each on each count in default to undergo R. I for one month on each count The appellate court acquitted them all of the charge undei Section 379, but maintained their conviction and sentence under Section 143. I P C The revision is filed against this order of the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE petitioners, according to the prosecution case, are alleged to have trespassed into the threshing floor of P. W. 1 on 9-2-65 at about 6 a. m. and carried away paddy after threshing paddy sheaves on that floor, to the house of petitioner 1. On protest bv P W. 1, it is alleged, some of the petitioners locked him up in one of his rooms and confined him there till the threshing operation was over. But there is no separate charge with respect to this part of the occurrence The paddy so carried away is the usufruct of a land which had been purchased by a registered sale deed dated 1-10-64 (Ex A) by P. W. 1 from one Prema, daughter by first wife of one Naran Misra. He (P. W 1) is said to have purchased only the interest of Prema in this land about eight months after the death of Naran. P. W. 1 is the brother of Naran Misra and paternal uncle of Prema

(3.) THE defence case is that the petitioner Benu Sutar is a Bhag tenant in respect of the land which is said to have been purchased by P W 1, under Shanti Dibya, the junior surviving widow of Naran Misra. In support of this plea the defence has examined Shanti as D. W. 2. There is no evidence on record about any partition of the land having been effected between Prema, daughter of Naran Misra and Shanti his surviving widow