witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The accused appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant stated the evidence of the prosecution to be false and further stated that he did not cut the mustard crop of Smt. Jummi. She has nothing to do with this agricultural field. She did not cultivate any crop in this agriculture field. From defence side, three witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited. Learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 18.7.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated hereinabove. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disputed land is in the name of accused appellant. Prosecution did not produce any evidence to prove possession and title of Smt. Jummi (PW-1). Shyamlal Gupta (PW-11), Patwari of the area, has stated that the disputed agriculture field belongs to Banwari. Smt. Jummi (PW-1) has stated that the disputed agricultural field bearing Khasra No.37 was bequeathed to her by father-in-law, Chhota. Will is Ex.P-13. In cross examination, she admits that in the Will, Khasra No.37 does not find place. Learned counsel submits that there are many discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. There are substantial improvements and contradictions in their statements. On confrontation, the witnesses have admitted several contradictions and
