Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.24 of 1998 ~~~~~~ Against the order of acquittal dated 20.02.1998 passed by Sri Indrasan Yadav, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial No. 1076 of 1996 arising out of Complaint Case No. 336 C/91. ~~~~~~ Ramsurat Rai, Son of Late Udho Rai, resident of village – Singachhaper, P. S. – Bettiah (Mofassil), District – West Champaran. ……… Complainant .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Munni Rai, Son of Late Bigan Rai. 3. Bhairo Rai, Son of Munni Rai. 4. Surendra Rai, Son of Muni Rai. 5. Ramdulari Devi, W/O. Munni Rai. 6. Godavri Devi, Daughter of Munni Rai. All residents of village – Lalgarh, P. S. – Bettiah (Mofassil), District – West Champaran. ……… Accused .... .... Respondents. ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 20.02.1998 passed by Sri Indrasan Yadav, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial No. 1076 of 1996 arising out of Complaint Case No. 336 C/91. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant/appellant had grown ‘Tisi’ and ‘Masuri’ crops and the accused persons harvested and took away the crops. 4. On the complaint the cognizance was taken. During the trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. However, the case of the defence as 2 appears from the trend of cross-examination that there was a case between the parties with regard to the lands in question for the offence under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and there was also a proceeding under Section 107 and 144 of the Cr. P. C between the parties, in which the prosecution party were the second party and other case of crops cutting was also going on between the parties. 5. The trial court, taking into consideration the fact that the parties are litigant with regard to the same land and both the parties are descendent of common ancestor and the partition case is going on, as apparent from the evidence of the witnesses and from the documentary evidence. Hence, taking into consideration the fact that there is bona fide dispute with regard to the lands in question, accused persons may be entitled for benefit of doubt. 6. I perused the records as well as the evidence of the parties, I find that there is substance that the land from which litigation of crops was going on and theft over the land as alleged over which both the parties are litigant and both the parties are descendent of common ancestor and even the partition suit is going on and the claim of the accused are bona fide claim, hence for case of theft, the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. 7. Hence, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order of acquittal recorded by the learned lower court. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 29th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.