AHI BHUSAN CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 47(1) of 1982 upholding the conviction and sentences passed under sections 323 and 379, Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate lInd Class, Karimganj in G.R. Case No. 1331 of 1978.

(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be stated. On 2.12.1978 at about 9/10 a.m. accused Amulya Chakraborty, Ahibhusan Chakrarvarty and Apurba Chakravorty cut and took away paddy from the land of the informant Jyotirmoy Chakraborty. Gauresh Chakraborty the brother of the informant, went to the field under Dag No. 87 along with the others and protested against the illegal acts of the accused persons. Accused Ahibhusan Chakravarty assaulted Gauresh Chakraborty with Huja causing several injuries on his person. The learned Magistrate framed charge under sections 379 and 323, Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioner. The accused pleaded not guilty. On trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of offences under sections 323 and 379, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he convicted the petitioner under sections 323 and 379 and sentenced him R.I. for one month under section 323, Indian Penal Code, and R.I. for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default further R.I. for one month. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 41(1) of 1982 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, Cachar. The learned Magistrate dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. M.A. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the judgments of the Courts below are perverse as the evidence of P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 elating to bona fide claim of right has not been considered by the Courts below. He has drawn my attention to the statements of P.Ws, 1,3 and 4. The evidence of P.W. 1 is- Accused claims that d/1 has been taken settlement by him from Motilal. The evidence of P.W.4 is-Accused person claims the land as his own. The evidence of P.W. 3 is-the d/1 is possessed by both the parties as there are cases pending in court between the parties. I cannot say who grew the disputed crop.