Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.20 of 1998 IN (SLA 17/98) ~~~~~~ Against the order of acquittal dated 06.01.1998 passed by Sri A. J. Shrivastav, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Danapur in Case No. 264(C) 94 / Tr. No. 604/1997, 519/1998. ~~~~~~ Bhikham Chauhan, Son of Munni Chauhan, resident of village – Manjhauli, Police Station – Bikram, District – Patna, at present village – Tikaitpur, P. S. – Bihta, District – Patna. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Ganga Bishun Chauhan, Son of Ram Swaroop Chauhan. 2. Ram Lakhan Chauhan, Son of Late Sadhu Chauhan. 3. Kaju Chauhan alias Ambika Chaujha. 4. Raju Chauhan alias Raju Kumar. Both sons of Ganga Bihsun Pd. Chauhan. 5. Ram Swaroop Chauhan, Son of Sadhu Chauhan. All residents of village – Manjhauli, Police Station – Bikram, District – Patna. ……. Accused ………. Respondents. 6. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellant : Sri Sadhu Sharan Yadav, Advocate. Sri Ram Nath Saran, Advocate. Sri Kamlesh Pd. Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondents : Sri 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 appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 06.01.1998 passed by Sri A. J. Shrivastav, Judicial Magistrate – Ist Class, Danapur in Case No. 264(C) 94 / Tr. No. 604/1997, 519/1998. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that a house was purchased by the husband of the complainant for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- in the year 1989, and was living in the house along with her husband, son and daughter-in-law. On 2 13.07.1994 at 7:00 P.M. the accused persons came, drove them out and locked the house for which the written report was given to the police on 14.07.1994 and again on 15.07.1995 the ASP, Danapur was intimated. On 25.07.1994, when the complainant went to the said house then found the house unlocked and the entire articles are missing. On inquiry the witnesses disclosed that the accused persons have theft away the articles on 24.07.1994. 4. During the trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of the complainant themselves and witnesses on their behalf that they never lived in the house and there is possession of accused persons since before, the occurrence and the witness Chitaranjan Prasad P. W. 2 stated that Ram Lal sleeps in the house since before his birth, other witnesses also accepted that accused Ram Lal is living in the house and it is his ancestral land and held that in view of these admissions the prosecution has not proved the possession over the house and hence held that there is no question for offence under Sections 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the witnesses have supported the prosecution that the accused persons have taken away the articles of the house and hence contended that the order of acquittal is bad. It has been contended that he has filed the document of title and possession like rent receipt and other documents which has not been considered. 7. However, having regard to the contention and the evidence, the criminal court is not required to look into the document to decide the title. Moreover, the rent receipt is neither document of title nor of possession. However, non- consideration of the documents has no concern when the possession of the appellant is admitted by prosecution. 3 8. Moreover, in view of the fact, I perused the evidence and apparently, I find that the witnesses themself admitted that the disputed plot is the ancestral land of the accused persons and the appellant claims to have purchased from one of the co- sharer itself which indicates that the matter concerns with the civil dispute about the claim of the land and house. The appellant is Nandoi i.e. the sister of the husband of complainant and the land is the ancestral land of the accused and no step was taken against the action of 13.07.1994. Though, it is stated that the police was informed but there is no paper filed in support thereof. Hence, I do not find any illegality and irregularity to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned lower court, which is based on sound reasoning and on the evidence of the witnesses. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal. This appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, 30th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.