Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.6 of 2002 =================================================== Ram Pavitar Rai, son of Late Miyalal Rai, resident of village-Birpur, P.S.-Birpur, District-Begusarai. .... .... (Complainant Petitioner)….Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chano Rai. 3. Ram Pramod Rai, Both sons of Late Narayan Rai. 4. Ram Kailash Rai. 5. Ram Sakal Rai. Both sons of Late Ram Anugrah Rai. 6. Sanjay Rai, son of Ram Sakal Rai. 7. Bhola Rai, son of Late Baboo Lal Rai. 8. Rajendar Rai, son of Biso Rai. All resident of village-Birpur, P.S.-Birpur (Barauni), District- Begusarai. .... .... (Opposite Parties)…. Respondents =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-12-2012 The present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in pursuance of the leave granted by this Court in S.L.A. No. 90 of 2001. The appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2001 passed by Sri C.S. Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.6 of 2002 dt.04-12-2012 2 / 6 2 Pradhan, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. C-662/1998 / Tr. No. 241/2001, by which, he has acquitted Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (for short “the accused”) from the charges levelled against them. In the aforesaid complaint case, the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The Accused Ram Sakal Rai was also separately charged under [STATUTE] for the theft of Rs. 50/-. The appellant (for short “the complainant”) had filed a complaint petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 29.6.1998 with respect to an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 28.6.1998 at about 9.30 a.m. It has been alleged in the complaint that on the relevant date and time of occurrence when the complainant went to look after his land, he saw the accused persons engaged in plucking Jackfruits from the tree standing on his land. The complainant protested. However, the accused persons surrounded him and they started assaulting him by slaps and fist. There is a specific allegation that the accused Ram Pramod Rai gave a Katta blow upon the complainant‟s neck. However, the complainant, in order to save himself raised his hand, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his left palm and near Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.6 of 2002 dt.04-12-2012 3 / 6 3 the thumb. In the meantime, the accused Chano Rai ordered to kill the complainant. He striked an iron rod on the complainant‟s head. However, the complainant, somehow, managed to save his head but, the iron rod hurled by the accused Chano Rai, hit him on his back. The accused Ram Kailash Rai was exhorting others to kill the complainant. It has also been alleged that the accused persons carried away almost 40 jackfruits worth Rs. 500/-. When the complainant raised hulla, witnesses Ram Binay Rai and Rajeev Kumar came to rescue him but the accused persons assaulted him too by lathi, slaps and fist. The accused persons tore the “Kurta” of the complainant and from the pocket of Rajeev Kumar, the accused Ram Sakal @ Jodhu Rai took away Rs. 50/-. The complainant alleges that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the police but, since the Officer-in-Charge was not present in the police station, he went to the Sadar Hospital, Begusarai for treatment. The complainant has given detail of the land in question in the complaint petition. An assertion has been made in the complaint that the accused persons had no concern with the alleged land in question and the complainant was coming in possession of the land in question since the date of its purchase. The complainant was examined on oath. In course of inquiry, some witnesses were also examined on behalf of the Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.6 of 2002 dt.04-12-2012 4 / 6 4 complainant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The learned Magistrate, who held the trial, framed charges in the manner indicated, hereinabove. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, in order to prove the charges, the complainant has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Rai, P.W. 2 Shiv Chandra Rai and P.W. 3 Ram Binay Rai are witnesses to the occurrence. As per complaint, P.W. 3 Ram Binay Rai was also assaulted by the accused persons. P.W. 4 Ram Pavitar Rai is the complainant P.W. 5 Bipin Paswan is a formal witnesses, who has proved sale deed of the land in question, which has been marked as Ext.-1 in course of trial. P.W. 6 Dr. M.R. Mustafa is the doctor, who is said to have examined the complainant at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. He has proved an out-door slip, which has been marked as Ext.-2 in course of trial. On behalf of the defence, one witness, namely, Balmiki Singh has been examined. He is also a formal witness who has proved several documents in course of trial which includes formal F.I.R. of Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 (marked as Ext.-A), charge sheet of Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 (marked as Ext.-B) and the sale deed with respect to the land in question (marked as Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.6 of 2002 dt.04-12-2012 5 / 6 5 Ext.-C). I have heard Mr. Choudhay Shyam Nandan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons and perused the records of the case. I find that the complainant Ram Pavitar Rai (P.W.4), in course of cross-examination, admits that one of the accused, namely, Chano had filed Birpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 1998 for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on the same date, time and at the same pla

Applicable IPC Section: 447

Statute Text:
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal trespass. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.