Amitav K.Gupta,J. - (1.) This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.11.1998 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 1997 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby conviction and order dated 04.01.1997 passed in T.R. Case No. 116 of 1997 was confirmed and the petitioners were directed to be released under provision of Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing bond of Rs. 3,000/- for maintaining peace and good behavior for a period of six months.
(2.) The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of Durga Bandua (P.W.-5), the informant, is that several cases were pending in the court below in respect to the land between him and the petitioners, Mangu Bandua, Mathura Bandua, Turam Bandua and Singrai Bandua. That the said cases were decided in favour of the other side and delivery of possession was also affected in respect of the land and after D/P he has no concern with the said land. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 23rd -24th October, 1994, all the petitioners armed with deadly weapons forcibly harvested the paddy crops standing on Plot Nos. 704, 706, 701, 752 and 464 under the Khata No. 40, which were in his exclusive possession. That the said occurrence was seen by Arjun Bandua, Turam Bandua(P.W.-4) and Manki Kudada (P.W.-3) and on the basis of the fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was registered, under Sections 143, 149, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 108 of 1994. Accordingly the petitioners had faced the trial for the charges under the aforesaid sections.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the informant are agnates and they are descendants of the recorded tenant; that it would appear from the judgment impugned that P.W.-4 has stated that the P.O. land is in the possession of the petitioners. It is contended that there is prior enmity between the parties and several cases have been going on; that allegation is regarding forcibly harvesting of the crops from the paddy field. It has been urged that the informant has admitted that earlier there was litigation with respect to the said land; that the informant has stated that he had seen the incident but out of fear he did not say anything and on the next date he had gone to village- Mundu but he was out of station. Accordingly, the informant lodged the case after delay of one day. That there is bonafide land dispute and the accused persons are also claiming the land, hence, the trial court and the appellant court without appreciating the fact has wrongly convicted the petitioners under Sections 379 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and the impugned order is fit to be set aside.;