J.N.TAKBU, J. - (1.) THESE are two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 1964 is by Maharaj Din, Maharani Din, Ganga, Ghazi, Ram Jatan @ Pilkhidin, Kesho, Ganga Din, Ram Sumer, Ram Narish, Sukhnandan, Hari Shankar and Goli, while Criminal Appeal No. 1656 of 1964 is by Uma Shankar and Hiramani. Both these appeals have been filed against the appellants' conviction and sentence of nine months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default three months further R. I. each under Section 395, Penal Code.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, one Smt. Lachhmania owned several plots of arable land in village Bhadrapur, lying within the circle of police station Mau Aima in the District of Allahabad. On her death these plots devolved on her daughter Smt. Chhabbo. On the 28th August 1962 Smt. Chabbo, by a registered sale deed, sold those plots along with some other plots to P. W. 1 Shri Prakash for a sum of Rs. 800/ - but she had put the vendee in possession of all those plots in the preceding July and the latter had sown Arhar and Bajra crops thereon. The Bajra crop was reaped in due course, but the Arhar, crop not being ready for harvesting, was allowed to stand till March, 1963. On the 24th March 1968 at about 5 P. M. the appellants came to those plots armed with lathis and started cutting the Arhar crop. While they were cutting the crop P. W. 1 Sri Prakash went there and protested, but the appellants threatened him and went on with the cutting. On the following day P. W. 1 Sri Prakash sent a written report about the incident to the S. P. (Complaints) under registered cover. Thereupon P. W. 8 Rama Shankar, S. I started the investigation of the case and after completing it he submitted a charge -sheet under Section 395, Penal Code against the appellants, and they were, in due course, committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial.
(3.) THE appellants pleaded not guilty and while some of them pleaded alibi, the others admitted the cutting of the Arhar crops by them. Their case was that they did so, as the plots in question belonged to them and they had sown the said crops on them. The prosecution produced P. W. 1 Sri Prakash, P. W. 2 Jagdish Prasad, P. W. 3 Ram Sewak and P. W. 4 Mathai to prove its case, while the appellants examined D. W. 1 Matanand and D. W. 2 Sheo Shankar to prove their version. The learned trial Judge rejected the prosecution case that the disputed crops were sown by P. W. 1 Sri Prakash, and on the other hand, found that they were sown by some of the appellants. He also found that though the possession of those plots had been delivered to Smt. Chhaboo in the preceding April i. e. April 1962, by the criminal court after the determination of the Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings concerning them in her favour, the appellants again trespassed upon them some time in the early part of July 1962 and sowed the disputed crops thereon. On these findings he held that as the sowing of the disputed crops was unlawful, the appellants were not entitled to them, and their cutting and taking them away by force rendered them punishable under Section 395, I. P.C.;