Satya Bhusan Barman, J. - (1.)THE five Petitioners were convicted on a charge of alleged theft of paddy crops from certain plots of land stated to be adjacent to the land of the accused persons and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/ - each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days each.
(2.)THE prosecution case is that on November 24, 1963 at 6 A.M. the accused -Petitioners removed paddy crops from certain lands being plots Nos. 23, 246 and 247 stated to be adjacent to the lands of the accused Petitioners on information lodged by the complainant (P.W. 1) at the local police station the same day at 7 A.M. In due course, after investigation, the Petitioners -along with others who were acquitted -were charged under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and were tried by the Magistrate, First Class Titllagarh, who convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
In support of the prosecution seven witnesses were examined, including P.W. 5 as an eyewitness. The defence is one of bonafide claim of right; they claim to have been in cultivating possession of the lands as hereditary trustees of a deity, relying on certain entries in the record -of -rights. In support of the defence case two witnesses were examined.

(3.)THE reasoning on which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused -Petitioners as stated in his judgment is this:
Even if the evidence of other P.Ws. may not be relied upon as they are inconsistent, the evidence of P.W. 5 an eye -witness cannot be brushed aside. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion on perusal of R.O.R. and consideration of the statement of P.W. 5 that the accused persons have no legal right upon the land in question and are guilty under Section 379 Indian Penal Code for having reaped and removed the paddy without authority.