JUDGEMENT
R.N.Dutt, J. -
(1.)This revisional application is directed against an appellate order of acquittal setting aside an order of conviction and sentence under Ss. 143,144 and 144/ 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The prosecution case was as follows : The petitioners are the owners of c. s. plot No. 1130 of Mouza Birgiri. This plot is known as Dakshinabaid land. The petitioners are also owners of some other land known as Bansihahal land. The petitioners executed usufractuary mortgage of the Dakshinabaid land in favour of Hurar Majhi and of the Bansibahal land in favour of Banku Rajwar on June 27, 1945. The petitioners paid back the dues on the mortgages on April 11, 1959 and took back possession of the lands. The petitioners then ploughed the lands. Transplantation was completed on Bansibahal land. Transplantation was also done in a portion of Dakshinabaid land. Thereafter Brahmananda Pathak the Opposite Party in Revision Case No. 1139 raised objections. The petitioners thereupon filed a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on August 6, 1959. Orders were passed in this proceeding restraining opposite parties 1 to 7 in Revision Case No. 1138 from interfering with the petitioners' possession in the Dakshinabaid land. Subsequently on August 12, 1959 the petitioners filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that opposite parties 1 to 7 in Revision Case No. 1138 were threatening to assault the petitioners if they would go to Dakshinabaid land for further transplantation. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Police to render assistance to the petitioners in the work of further transplantation on that land. On August 13, 1959, the petitioners and their labourers accompanied by some Policemen went to the Dakshinabaid land for further transplantation when opposite parties 1 to 7 in Revision Case No. 1138 together with Brahmananda, the Opposite Party in Revision Case No. 1139 and some other persons armed with lathis, swords and axes assembled on that laud; Brahmananda gave orders to assault the petitioners and opposite parties 1 to 7 in revision Case No. 1138 threatened the petitioners. One of the Police men, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police protested but to no effect. Then he sent a constable to Purulia for further Police assistance. One Sub-Inspector of Police, with an armed force, later came to the place and arrested opposite parties 1 to 7 in revision case No. 1138. Brahmananda, the opposite party in revision case No. 1139, was later arrested.
(3.)On these allegations opposite parties 1 to 7 in revision case No. 1138 and two other persons, Sibu and jitu were charged under Sections 447 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code and Brahmananda, the opposite party in revision No. 1139 was charged under Ss. 144/ 447/114 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that opposite parties 1 to 7 in revision case No. 1138 were the owners of Dakshinabaid land and were all along in possession of the same. It was further said that no such incident occurred on August 13, 1959 and that they did not actually go to the Dakshinabaid land on that day but the petitioners got them arrested from some other land known as Situbandh land.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.