LAKHAN TIRIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the learned District and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa held the appellants guilty under Sections 326/34 and 379/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rl for three years and three months respectively.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 10th October, 1993 the informant Dhibri Kui went to see her paddy crops planted in Mauja Bhawarpur, P.S. Manjhgaon, District Singhbhum West, Chaibasa alongwith her daughter, when she found all the appellants harvesting her ripe paddy from the field. It is further stated that when she objected why they were cutting paddy planted by her, the appellants asserted saying that the field belonged to them and they have got their share and on further protest by the informant, the appellants started assaulting the informant with sickle. It is further alleged that appellants caught hold of the informant and gave three blows with sickle on her head. When her daughter tried to intervene, she was also assaulted on her hands and back. Thereafter the appellants took away the harvested paddy worth of Rs. 250/ -. The incident was seen by the villagers. She further asserted that there was a land dispute between the appellants and the informant for the same land and a case was pending in the District Court.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial court has committed a mistake of fact and law. It is further asserted that the trial court has not considered the non - examination of the injured Jasmati, daughter of the informant as well as the I.O. of the case, which was fatal for the prosecution story. It is further asserted that the appellants have got bona fide claim and title over the disputed land and they have planted the paddy, for which this false case has been lodged against them. The memo of appeal further asserted that the eye witnesses contradict the fact assented by the informant, as the informant has herself given differen version before the police and the court. it is also asserted that in view of the admitted fact that the land was in dispute, the prosecution story should have been dis carded.