STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LAKHAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS government appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.1991, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Session Case No. 7 of 1985 by which he acquitted the fourteen respondents of various charges, like, that under Sections 147, 148, 447, 326, 307, 323 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case was based on the First Information Report of P.W.1 Laxman Mandal who stated that on 03.08.1978 at 8 a.m. while the informant along with others, like, P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 etc. was sitting at his Kamat, 18 accused persons named in the FIR came there armed with lathi, Garasa Dabiya, bows and arrows as also 12 pairs of oxen and started tilling the land appertaining to Khata No. 871, Khesra No. 2079, measuring 1 1/2 Bighas as also that appertaining to Khesra No. 408, measuring 16 Kathas and 4 Dhurs. The informant along with his father, namely, Udho Mandal (P.W.5) and Sant Lal Mandal (P.W.2) besides Radho Mandal (P.W.9) went on to the field and objected to the tilling of his land upon which respondents Mahabir Mandal carrying a Dabiya, Gajadhar Mandal carrying a Garasa, Ajo Mian also carrying a Garasa and Akin Mian carrying bow and arrows chased P.W.1 who entered inside his Kamat. All accused persons came chasing and assaulted P.W.1 with lathi. It was specifically alleged that P.W.1 was assaulted by Israil Mian with lathi and one Most. Genhari Devi (P.W.11) was assaulted and injured by Mahabir Mandal and Gajadhar Mandal by blows with Dabiya and Garasa respectively. P.W.11 was also assaulted by Makhan Mandal with lathi. It was stated that accused Sheo Narayan Chaudhary ordered on which respondent Mehadi Mian lighted a match stick and set fire to the Kamat which was completely gutted. P.W.5 Udho Mandal, P.W.2 Sant Lal Mandal and P.W.9 Radho Mandal were also assaulted by the accused persons with lathi. Most. Genhari Devi had received injuries on her left scapula, jaw and right foot and at other places by Garasa and Dabiya. The informant stated that he brought Most. Genhari Devi and other injured to the police station and lodged the FIR. The Investigating Officer was not examined but 15 accused persons out of 18 named in the FIR were put on trial and they were acquitted of the charges as just indicated.

(3.) THE evidence of other witnesses also indicates that it was a free fight and the probability which emerges from the evidence is that the accused persons were acting under a bona fide belief that they had a right to go over the land and as may appear from the evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph 4 that the land probably was also in possession of the accused persons. This evidence indicates as if four accused persons were in possession of the land. If this was the evidence indicating that the land stood in the cultivating possession of the accused persons prior to the date of occurrence, then in our opinion they had a right to till the land and no person had any business to interfere with their tilling of the land.