In a criminal appeal regarding theft and insult, the Patna High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that conflicting evidence regarding land possession and procedural gaps made the lower court's finding unsafe.
The impugned judgment is set aside and appellants are discharged from liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.107 of 2009
Arising out of P. S. Case No. -128 Year-2001 Thana -Chainpur District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR)
===========================================================
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baban Ray-Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta-A.P.P.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 10-10-2018
None appears on behalf of appellants, on account thereof, Sri Baban Ray, learned counsel has been requested to assist the Court as an Amicus Curiae.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
2
Section 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1st , Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2005.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
3
as a result of which, paddy one quintal, one cot along with other articles turned to ashes. On the next day, while he was in a way to police station, accused persons threatened of dire consequence. Accordingly, delay has been caused in filing of the written report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
4
exhibited, red card as Exhibit-1, an order dated 19.09.2001 passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-2, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3. In likewise manner, defence had also exhibited certified copy of judgment of Complaint Case No.110 of 2001 as Exhibit-A.
5
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
occurrence, he was at his house. After hearing sound of uproar, he came to the house of Somaru Singh and then, he along with Dina Singh, Ram Lal Ram, Ramdahin Yadav, Somaru Singh gone over the plot where they have seen accused persons (named) engaged in carrying bundles of harvested paddy crop from the field of Somaru Singh. They have harvested the paddy crop over an area of 05 acre costing Rs.50,000/-. During cross-examination at Para-2, he had stated that paddy belonged to his uncle. It has been planted over the land settled by the State of Bihar in favour of uncle. Land was settled by the S.D.O., but he is unable to disclose the Khata, Khesra number. He is unable to disclose the land having been bifurcated in how many sub-plot. He is unable to disclose in which year land was settled. In Para-3, he has stated that accused persons have not indulged in such kind of activity at an earlier occasion. For the first time, it was cut away by the accused persons on the date of occurrence. Then has stated that both the parties were litigating with regard to the land under dispute. He has further stated that his father has also got settlement in the said plot. In Para-4, he has stated that he is unable to say, who has harvested the paddy crop and who was carrying the same. In Para-5, he has stated that they have not gone to the police station on the date of occurrence. They have gone to the police station after 7-8 days and 2-4 day thereafter, police came to the place of occurrence. In Para-6, he has stated that nothing was recovered. Then
6
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
has denied the suggestion that they have not possessed the disputed land.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
7
Accused persons have taken the land on ‘Rehan’. Para-3 of the crossexamination relating to second occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
8
recorded his statement, read over to him and finding it correct, he had put his L.T.I. During cross-examination at Para-4, he has stated that both the parties are on strained relationship relating to the aforesaid land since before. In Para-5, he has stated that he has three brothers. Dasa Kharwar, Sumer and he himself. Land has been settled separately in favour of three. They all are separate. Dasa Kharwar had instituted a case against the accused persons with regard to the aforesaid land. He has come to know that accused persons won the case. In Survey Plot No.769, two acres have been settled to him while two acres to his brother Dasa Kharwar. In Para-6, he has stated that accused persons cut away the paddy from the land allotted to his brother Dasa Kharwar also. Some portion was left away by the accused persons, which was approximately of five kattha and the same has been harvested by him. At Paras-8, 9, there happen to be cross-examination relating to second occurrence. In Para-10, he has stated that he has gone to police on the following day. He is not remembering how many days thereafter, police came. Accused persons after harvesting, kept the paddy at his Khaliyan, but he had not shown the same to the police. Again at Paras-11 and 12, there happens to be cross-examination regarding 2nd occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
9
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
10
Prosecutor while supporting the finding arrived at by the learned lower Court has submitted that after perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that before arriving to the conclusion, the learned lower Court had made proper analytical approach to the evidences adduced on behalf of prosecution as well as also weighed repercussion on account of non-examination of the I.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.107 of 2009 dt.10-10-2018
11
disclosed with regard to dispute amongst the parties relating to the possession. In the aforesaid background, the examination of the I.O. was very much essential in order to have his objective finding relating to the place, at least prima facie in whose possession the land under dispute was. In the background of conflicting evidence over possession, it looks unsafe to concur with the finding arrived at by the learned lower Court.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Vikash/-
| AFR/NAFR | A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| UploadingDate | 22.10.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
22.10.2018 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's conviction was sustainable given inconsistencies in evidence regarding exclusive possession of the land.
Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice despite the lower court's observation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Singh and others
The State of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
