AEADHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the judgment of acquittal of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12 by order dated 15-12-2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gindih in Complaint Case No. 107 of 1998 (TR No. 1362 of 2004). The proceedings were initiated against Opposite parties 2 to 12 by way of a pnvate complaint for offences punishable undei Section 323/ 341/379/427/147/447 of the Indian Penal Code The allegation in the complaint is that at 11 A.M. on 7-2-1998, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12 armed with bows, arrows, axes, etc. jumped over the boundary wall of the complainant's land, damaged potatoes, tomatoes and brinjals after digging and plucking them and that when the complainant petitioner requested them not to do so, the opposite parties 2 to 3 chased him with bows, arrows, etc and escaped by climbing over a tree. According to the complainant petitioner, the witnesses who rushed to the scene on hearing the alarm requested the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12 not to destroy the crops but the opposite parties took away the potatoes, brinjals and tomatoes. According to him, though complaint was filed at the police station, no action was taken.

(2.) After the complaint was taken on file, inquiry was conducted, charges were framed and the trial proceeded and during trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined. Exhibits A-l to A-26 as well as B, C, and D were also marked. Learned trial court on consideration of the evidence placed before him came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish his case and acquitted opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12. Hence the present revision application.

(3.) I have perused the judgment of the trial court from which it could be seen that witnesses who were examined by the petitioner complainant though in examination-in-chief stated that the land belonged to the petitioner, in cross-examination, came out with an answer that they were not aware of the description of the land such as khata No., Plot No. etc. The trial Judge also found that the witnesses were ignorant as to who were in possession of the property in question and in fact, one of the witnesses admitted in cross-examination that the said land is in mouza Khadhra. PW-2 was examined on the side of the complainant. The trial court found that his evidence did not support the prosecution as he stated that he could not even give the date of occurrence and that the opposite parties 2 to 12 had excommunicated him from the society. PW-3 though gave evidence in support of the petitioner, in examination in-chief, he faltered in cross-examination by admitting that the land in question is a disputed land over which both parties were claiming their right and that he is also not aware of the details of the land e.g. khata No , boundary of the land etc. in which the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12 allegedly trespassed. The complainant examined himself as PW-4 and his evidence was disbelieved by the trial court since he admitted in cross-examination that the land in question was actually in possession of the respondents Nos. 2 to 12 and they were ploughing - though he stated that they were ploughing the land by force. The trial court also found fault with his evidence since he admitted in cross-examination that he could not tell the name of the village in which the land in question was situate and in view of his admission that the proceedings were pending between the parties as regards the same land. The trial court, for well-considered reasons, disbelieved the evidence of PW-5 who is the complainant as well as the evidence of PWs-6 and 7 who are related to the complainant. They were also disbelieved in view of the answers given In their crossexamination that there is a litigation pending between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 2 to 12. The learned trial Judge also considered the evidence of defence witnesses and ultimately came to the conclusion that the complainant petitioner did not establish his case.