Chulhai Hazra and Others vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Concurrent finding of guilt and also sentence against the petitioners recorded by the trial Court and also affirmed by the appellate Court has been impugned in this revision, It seems that though Ganpat Hazra too suffered conviction and had been sentenced by the Court below, during pendency of this revision he died which fact finds mentioned in I.A. 932 of 2001 filed for condoning the delay in filing this application and as such his name seems to be expunged from the revision application.

For brevity of contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioners, salient features of the prosecution case, is apt to be noticed. Factual matrix on 2.12.1993, when Mahadeo Chaubey (P.W. 4) went to watch his paddy field he noticed the petitioners and Ganpat Hazra haivesting the standing crops from 19 kathas 3 dhurs of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 133, and when he forbade them and registered protest, he was assaulted with fists and slaps. Those aggrieved, took recourse to Police authority but barring initiation of a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police case with any cognizable offence has been drawn, and hence, the aggrieved, took recourse to judicial authority by fifing a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, pursuant to which trial commenced. In the eventual trial, the State examined ait.ogether four witnesses including Mahadeo Chaubey. (P.W. 4) who set judicial proceeding in motion and also his son Alok Kumar Chaubey (P.W. 1). The prosecution had also examined Rijhan Singh (P.W. 2) and Jagdish Dubey (P.W. 3).

The defence of the petitioners before the Court below was that the document through which the land in question was suggested to have been conveyed to Mahadeo Chaubey was forged and fictitous document and also that since the petitioners had worked for Mahadeo Chaubey, they were falsely implicated on demand of wages from him. The trial Court, however, while rejecting plea of innocence of petitioners, recorded finding of guilt under Sections 379 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine months on first count and six months on second count. The petitioners also suffered conviction u/s 323 IPC for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four months with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. When the matter was carried in appeal, as has been stated, the appellate Court too endorsed the finding recorded by the Court below.

It seems that various documents were placed on the record both on behalf of the prosecution and also the petitioners, and among these documents which deserved consideration were also the sale-deeds which are exhibit-4 series through which the land in question is shown to have been conveyed to Bhagat Chaubey, grandfather of Mahadeo Chaubey from Durbal Hazra, grandfather of the petitioners. The matter was agitated even before the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is explicit from Exhibit-3, and the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence has found the possession over the disputed land in favour of Mahadeo Chaubey. Some documents were placed on the record on behalf of the petitioners ostensibly to suggest some litigation between the parties in past and also conviction of the petitioners in complaint Case No. 1624 of 1989 against which Cr. Appeal No. 135 of 1993 was pending for consideration. The probative value of the testimony of witnesses has been correctly appreciated by the Court, below and also the appellate Court for which I do not find good reasons to interfere.

However, certain facts highlighted at Bar deserve consideration. Earned Counsel for the petitioners would urge that the prosecution was launched against the petitioners in the year 1993 and since then about a decade has passed and also that the petitioners during the post conviction period have remained in custody for about 47 days, Series of litigations, appear to have been initiated between the parties ostensibly for land dispute and even this proceeding appears to be off shoot of the land dispute, in respect of 19 kathas 3 dhurs of land for which both the parties have been claiming title and possession, and while the claim of the petitioners appears to have been based on the entries made in survey khatiyan, as has been stated earlier, the claim of the complainant was based on sale-deeds shown to have been executed in the name of their grandfather by the grandfather of the petitioners.

Regard being had to the fact that the petitioners have suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about nine years and that too for land dispute, while endorsing the finding of guilt recorded by the Courts below, the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, and with this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed.