CHATRU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHATRU was convicted Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 9 month's rigorous imprisonment and was also convicted Under Section 307 IPC. and awarded 3 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Alwar. The rest or the applicants were also convicted Under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 148 and 3 years' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code These sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They preferred an unsuccessful appeal before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Still dissatisfied the nine application are before me seeking a revision of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar.

(2.) THIS is one of those usual cases where the dispute arose about an agricultural parcel of land. The prosecution says that one the moring of May 23, 1966 Sultan and his brothers Gangaram, Kanhaiya and Harchand and his another relation Surtaram went to Khasra No. 564 situate in viilage Pehal. in the one fourth share where of they had sown the crop of Jawar only a few days ago, Chatru (Sheonarain, Bodan and Chandgi applicants before me were found ploughing the aforesaid field and thereby destroying the crop. Pirabh Umarao, Durga, Bishambhar and Harnarain were sitting on the wall nearby when Sultan questioned as to why they were destroying the crop which they had sown, the accused asserted that it was their field. Thereafter, Chatru who was armed with a Farsi and other accused persons who had lathis with them made a violent attack on Sultan and his companions as a result whereof multiple simple and grievous injuries were caused to them. Tulla and Mamraj reached the spot. A fist information report was lodged in the Police Station, Mundawar at 10.30 A.M. on May 22, 1986, which is marked Ex. P/1. A charge sheet was eventually presented and nine accused persons were committed to be tried and they faced their trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Alwar.

(3.) MR . Bhargava, learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that field No. 564 was in the joint possession of the applicants and Sultan and Gangaram. As a matter of fact the Panchayat had accepted the mutation made in favour of Sultan and Gangaram and the ex -parte mutation remains where it was The learned Counsel vehemently urged that both the courts below were in grave error when they found that Sultan and Gangaram were in exclusive possession. The principle of law is that in case of a joint ownership each one of the co -sharers is in possession of every inch of the joint land. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged partition by metes and bounds which is said to have taken place in Samwat Year 2015 and therefore the applicants had every right o be in possession of the land in dispute and on the prosecution's own showing it was the complainant Sultan and Gangaram who along with three other persons went to the field No. 564 with a view to drive out the party of the applicants from the field in dispute and it were they who formed the unlawful assembly and not the accused applicants. He was critical of the appreciation of documentary evidence and said that no conclusion of exclusive possession was possible from Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/4.