Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.7 of 2000 ======================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 1999 PASSED BY SHRI S. K. SINHA ‘MUKUL’, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, KHAGARIA IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 138C OF 1999 (TRIAL NO. 1020 OF 1999) ======================================================== JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE SHITAL PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHESHKHUT, POLICE STATION MAHESHKHUT, DISTRICT KHAGARIA .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. ANIRUDH SINGH @ BHULAN SINGH, SON OF LATE ADYA PRASAD SINGH 2. ASHOK SINGH @ PETU SINGH, SON OF PRIYABRAT NARAYAN SINGH 3. PRAMOD SINGH, SON OF ANIRUDH SINGH @ BHULAN SINGH 4. NARESH @ BADAUWA YADAV, SON OF LATE JATTU YADAV 5. SARWAN YADAV, SON OF LATE JATTU YADAV 6. NAGO YADAV, SON OF LATE JATTU YADAV ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE PAURA, POLICE STATION GOGARI, DISTRICT KHAGARIA 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : MS. ABHA SINGH, AMICUS CURIAE For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this appeal. Accordingly, Ms. Abha Singh is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd December, 1999 by which the Opposite Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 2 / 4 2 Parties 1 to 6 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 3. Initially, the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 were convicted by the order dated 27th July, 1999 passed by Shri A. B. R. Verma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria. The Opposite Parties 1 to 6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under [STATUTE] , rigorous imprisonment for six months under [STATUTE] and further rigorous imprisonment for two years under [STATUTE] . All the sentences were to run concurrently. The Opposite Parties preferred Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1998, in which the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and remanded the matter for fresh hearing from the stage of framing of the charges, which resulted in acquittal of the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 after re-trial. 4. This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Jagdish Prasad Yadav in which he claims that he along with his mazdoors were cutting the paddy from the field appertaining to khata no. 138 plot no. 191 measuring about 10 kathas. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 came to the spot and took away 40 bundles of paddy. It is also alleged that the miscreants forcibly took the signature of the informant on two blank papers. 5. The Trial Court while considering the manner of Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 3 / 4 3 the occurrence has primarily taken into account and rightly so, the claims of the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 as well as the complainant that the lands in question was recorded in the name of one or the other party and has also considered the question of possession. The conclusion reached by the Appellate Court is that the land in question was purchased by Adya Prasad Singh, father of the Opposite Party No. 1. The malguzari for the plot in question was also paid by them. Therefore, prima facie they were able to establish that they were in possession and have a valid title over the lands. Once the Trial Court came to this finding, the question that the accused persons came to the plot in question and took away the paddy crops forcibly cannot be believed as they had no reason to forcibly take away the crop that had been harvested. 6. In this context, and in view of the aforesaid facts, the evidence of witnesses, if examined, and taken into account would become weak as apart from their being discrepancies in the manner of the occurrence, the complainant has failed to prima facie show that he had title over the lands in question. Lastly, the Trial Court has concluded that all these matters if disputed can only be settled in a Civil Court. The Trial Court has thus rightly acquitted the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 (accused persons). 7. This Court finds that there is absolutely no ground made out in this appeal which would merit interference Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 4 / 4 4 of this Court. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Prabhakar Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 385

Statute Text:
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting or attempting to put in fear of injury, in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.