LAWS(GAU)-1984-6-16

MUNSERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On June 21, 1984
MUNSERUDDIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether in the absence of firm evidence that the complainant was in possession of the land and/or could grow the standing crop, the subject matter of theft, and when the accused in presence of all and sundry openly harvested the crop, a conviction is sustainable, more so, when a civil litigation was pending between the parties wherein the accused had already claimed right, title, interest and confirmation of his possession? This is in short the Question involved in the instant criminal revision where 4 petitioners have been convicted u/s. 379 I P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 months each and to pay fine as well.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 13.11.77 the accused persons forcibly harvested jute from the land belonging to the complainant arid openly kept the sate in a pond of Biraj Khandkar for processing. The complainant examined 3 witnesses including herself. The, complainant claimed that the land belonged to her, but the accused bad driven her out therefrom. However by virtue of a decree she re-entered the laid, cultivated jute, which was removed by the accused. Two other witnesses, relations of the complainant, narrated the same story. The trial court accepted the version and convicted the accused and sentenced them, which was up, held by the appellate court.

(3.) There is no finding nor is that any material to show the date of the re-entry of the complainant- in the disputed land. The prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was in actual physical possession of the land, at all relevant the and that the complainant grew jute and from her possession jute was harvested by the accused persons. The defence plea is that they were an along in possession of the land; the land belonged to Monseruddin who bad filed /a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest and confirmation of his possession in the disputed land, which was pending at all relevant time and ultimately decreed in Second Appeal No. 57/77 decided by the High Court on 13.12.78.