JAIRAM DEBATA Vs. BABAJI RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/ - and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) ACCORDING to complainant (p.w. 1), on 30.12.1964 he seized Petitioner's bullock which damaged his black gram crop and was driving it to the cattle pound when Petitioner forcibly rescued it, The defence is a template denial. The learned Magistrate relying on the evidence of p.ws. 1 to 3 accepted the prosecution case, found Petitioner guilty under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. In appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it relates to a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. In revision, it is not the duty of this Court to re -appreciate the evidence or interfere with a finding of fact on the ground of sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. Apart from it, it is not correct to say that there is absence of corroboration of p.w. 1's evidence regarding the rescue of the bullock. P.w. 2 has stated that p.w. 1 had tied a bullock and he was driving the cow and calf, the two other animals which are said to have committed damage along with the bullock. p.w. 1 has stated that Petitioner took away the bullock which he had seized. Both the Courts have accepted this evidence and J. Bee no valid reason to interfere with this finding.