RAM EKBAL RAI Vs. JALDHARI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of Patna of a Criminal Revision Application by the appellants against their conviction under Sections 379 and 143 of the Penal Code ordered by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah.

(2.) The respondent (complainant) was the purchaser of plot No. 811 in Village Chakni, District Shahabad, at an auction sale held in 1954 in execution proceedings arising from a rent suit filed by Dumraon Raj against its tenant, Ram Dheyan Teli. Ram Dheyan died leaving him surviving two widows, Mst. Rekhia and Mst. Sita Devi. The respondent claimed that in pursuance of the said auction sale he applied to the court for possession and physical possession was delivered to him through the court's bailiff on September 24, 1954. According to him, he remained in possession of the said plot till the date of the incident in question, that is, March 24, 1962. A day prior to that day, i. e. on March 23, 1962, he had applied to the police that he expected trouble from the appellants, and therefore, the police officer had stationed in the said plot two persons, Kesho Prasad (P. W. 3) and Sheo Lakhan Ahir (P. W. 2) to watch the crop sown by him. The respondent's case was that early in the morning on March 24, 1962, the appellants together with a large number of persons differently armed, came to the field and notwithstanding protests by P. W. 3 and his said companion, forcibly harvested the standing crop worth about Rs. 500/- and took it away.

(3.) On these allegations the appellants were tried under Sections 379 and 143 of the Penal Code. The Trial Magistrate held (a) that the plot was in possession of the respondent on the date of the incident, (b) that he had sown the said crop, and (c) that the appellants forcibly took away the said crop. On these findings he convicted the appellants under Sections 379 and 143. These findings were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal by the appellants, who also upheld the said order of conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants simply on the ground that it could not interfere with concurrent findings of fact given by the Trial Magistrate and agreed to the Additional Sessions Judge.