Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.8 of 1998 ~~~~~~ Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.09.1997 passed by Sri Raj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate-2nd Class, Chapra (Saran) in Complaint Case No. 1738 / 96 / Tr. No. (C) / 44/97. ~~~~~~ Ram Dayal Rai, Son of Late Ram Singhasan Rai, Resident of village – Bangra, P. S. – Masrak, District – Saran at Chapra. ………… Complainant .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Pulena Rai, Son of Mangal Rai. 2. Awadh Rai, 3. Vakil Rai, 4. Balister Rai, 2, 3 and 4 All sons of Pulena Rai. All residents of village – Bangra, P. S. – Masrak, District – Saran at Chapra. ……. Accused .... .... Respondents. ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondents : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.09.1997 passed by Sri Raj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate-2nd Class, Chapra (Saran) in Complaint Case No. 1738 / 96 / Tr. No. (C) / 44/97. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the complainant/appellant had grown crops on the land after purchasing the same. The accused persons came armed with Lathi, Bhala and destroyed the crops on the four Katha of the land and when the complainant protested, he was assaulted by slaps and fists and the complainant being economically weak, he could not be treated by the doctor and so there is no injury report. 4. During the trial four witnesses were examined. The defence of the accused persons is that no occurrence has been alleged and the complainant/appellant is 2 neither in cultivating possession nor has purchased the land and there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and the parties are descendents of common ancestor. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence held that the complainant has completely failed to prove that the crop standing is exclusively belonging to him or he is owner of the land or in possession thereof. The trial court found contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses of assault and there is a dispute about the share of the land and hence acquitted the appellant. 6. From perusal of the records and evidence, I find that there is no illegality and irregularity in the evidence. From the evidence of P. W. 4 Ram Dayal Rai the complainant itself, it is apparent that the land stands in the name of Gogal Rai. Gopal Rai has three brothers and appellant is descendant of one brother. Gopal Rai was Karta of the joint family. The land was purchased in the name of Gopal Rai. There was no partition by court. However, there is no evidence of any exclusive possession or the fact that he has grown the crops. 7. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has claimed over the land and the claim is bona fide and not a mere pretence, I do not find any illegality and irregularity to interfere with the order. Moreover, the date of occurrence is of the year 1996 and the offence is of petty nature. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned lower court. This appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 30th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.