B.B.MANGALMURTI, J. - (1.) Leave to appeal has been urged against the judgment dated 26th June, 2010 in P.C.R. Case No. 37 of 2005, T.R. No. 159 of 2010 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka has acquitted accused persons/O.P.Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the land under Jamabandi No. 19 of Mouza Kukurtopa was recorded in the name of Nawalkishore Gorai, the grandfather of the complainant in Gentzer Settlement and presently it is recorded in the name of father and uncle of the complainant which was finally published on 24.06.2001. The lands in question are in possession of complainant and his family having right, title and interest. The complainant grew paddy crops at plot No. 510 of the said Mouza Kukurtopa which was ready for harvesting then on 28.12.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. accused, persons and 50 others after forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons reached to the paddy field of the complainant and started harvesting paddy crops. On protest they became violent and threatened the complainant for dire consequences. They forcibly harvested the paddy crop till 6.00 p.m. and took 10 quintals of crops worth Rs. 5,000/-. The matter was reported to the Officer-in-Charge Jama Police Station but no action was taken then a complaint case was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.01.2005 under Sections 144, 147, 148 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) After recording the enquiry witnesses, summon was directed to be issued upon all accused persons and after their appearance the substance of accusation were explained to them. The complainant produced 04 witnesses and brought on record 04 exhibits whereas accused persons adduced in their defence 03 witnesses but no documents were exhibited. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court recorded the finding that the alleged land was in custody of the police station and both parties were restrained as both the parties are in dispute since 1979. The court also found that in absence of independent legal witnesses and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, the case of complainant could not be proved. The court also found that the case is purely of a civil nature and does not impose criminal liability upon the accused persons resulting into passing of order of acquittal by the trial court.;