LAWS(PAT)-1996-4-73

BALCHAND BHADANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 04, 1996
BALCHAND BHADANI Appellant
V/S
RAMAUTAR MUKHIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant filed Complaint Case No. 109 (C) of 1973 against five accused persons including respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian penal Code. The three accused-respondents were convicted by the learned subdivisional Judicial Magistrate for be offences under Section 143, 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal code vide judgment dated 26th march, 1983 and were ordered to the released on entering into a bond of good conduct without sureties for keeping peace for a period of one year. They preferred an appeal and the leraned Additional Sessions judge, by his judgement and order dated 13. 12. 1983, set aside the order of the trial court and acquitted them of the charges. The complainant after being granted Special leave to Appeal by order dated 7. 2. 1984 passed in S. L. A. No. 6 of 1984, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that five accused persons (including three respondents in this appeal) went to the mango orchard of the complainant situated upon a portion of plot no. 1511 in Mauja Jiwachpur ps. Chhatapur in the district of Saharsa (Now Supaul) on the morning of 6. 6. 1973 and started plucking the mangoes. On being informed by his watchman, the complainant-appellant came to the P. O. and saw the occurrence. The accused persons, some of whom were armed with weapons, ran to assault him where. upon the complainant kept a distance from them. The accused persons plucked 1000 mangoes worth Rs. 200/- from the orchard of the complainant. The complainant Balchand bhadani-P. W. 1 examined himself and two others, both eye witnesses, namely, Bala mukhiya and Janak Mukhiya-RWs. 2 and 3 respectively. The defence also examined three defence witnesses, namely, Sheo narain Mukhiya D. W. 1, Ganga Mukhiya D. W. 2 and kapileshwar Bahardar-D. W. 3. Except for D. W. 3 who was a formal witness, d. Ws. 1 and 2 had been examined on the point of possession of the mango orchard. The prosecution has also filed some documents including the original sale deed dated 20. 5. 1069 executed by Asharfi Mukhiya in favour of the complainant's son with respect to 11 kathas 17 dhoors of land including five mango trees on plot no. 1511 which was marked Ext. 1. Some other documents were also filed. The defence had also produced certain documents including Ext. A which was original sale deed dated 19. 4. 1971 executed by Chandar Mukhiya and surya Narain Mukhiya in favour of accused Jualal-respondent no. 2 transferring 14 kathas land of plot no. 1511. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate did not accept the defence of the accused persons and after holding the prosecution case as proved, convicted the accused persons under section 379 of the Indian Penal code and while respondent no. 2 Jualal mukhiya was convicted under Section 144 i. PC. the other two respondents were convicted under section 143 I. P. C.

(3.) THE learned appellate court, however, took the view that the evidence adduced by the parties disclosed a case of bonafioe dispute with regard to the piece of land on which the mango trees stood and the conviction of the accused, for that reason, was not justified in the eye of law. In that view of the matter, learned appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them.