and she grew paddy crop; which was harvested by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below erred in not taking into consideration the Ext. A- rent receipts produced by the petitioners and also erred by ignoring the registered sale-deed executed in favour of Kali Devi mother of Arjun Ram and grandmother of the petitioner Balo Ram. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in para-28 of her cross-examination the C.W.6 has categorically stated that at the time of incident, the accused persons stated that they were carrying their own paddy. It is further submitted that the C.W.6- complainant admitted in para-29 of her deposition the fact that the accused persons have taken some land from the elder brother of her husband and in the subsequent paragraphs she has stated that the accused persons are in possession of the land for which the elder brother of her husband registered the sale-deed which was executed by her husband and her husband’s elder brother which is of area 22½ decimals and the learned trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate this fact that this admission of the C.W.6 is sufficient to show that there was a bona fide land dispute between the parties more so because in the complaint, the place of occurrence has been described as part plot of 0.11½ acre without boundary or without having any map or without any other information sufficient enough to specifically identify the place of occurrence land. So, it is submitted that the learned courts below ought to have held that the description of the place of occurrence land is vague and in view of admission of the complainant herself who has been examined as C.W.6 that the petitioners are in possession of 22½ decimals of land out of the same plot as that of the place of occurrence land; the learned courts below ought to have acquitted the revision petitioners by giving them the benefit of doubt. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned appellate court erred by coming to a conclusion that in the partition, the place of occurrence land of which there is only a vague description insufficient to specifically identify it; in absence of any boundary or any map, fall to the share of the ancestors of the complainant; though there is no evidence in this respect in the record. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside and the revisions petitioners be acquitted of the charges at least by giving them the benefit of doubt.
