IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.1065 of 2010 RAJDEO PASWAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 27.01.2011 L.C.R. has already been received. With the consent of the parties this appeal was heard at the stage of admission. This appeal is against the judgment dated 24.5.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-fast Track Court No.III, Aurangabad passed in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1999/20 of 2003 whereby the appellants, who were tried of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 452 read with Section 149 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but they have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As to the quantum of sentence, the learned trial court vide his judgment has directed the appellants under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to be released on executing a probation bond of Rs. 2000/- without surety for a period of one year and to maintain peace and be of a good behaviour during the period. The prosecution case vide the F.I.R. of the informant Girdhari Paswan was that on 30.12.1998 at about 5:00 P.M. while he along with his family members was on his land also containing his house premises, the appellants/accused variously armed with lathi, bhala and gadasa came over the land and asked him (informant) to vacate the land and house and that on their refusal they started dragging them out and that on their protest, they assaulted with lathi, danda causing injury to him (informant). 2 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the informant has not disclosed the details of P.O. land by mentioning any specific Khata-Khesra number and the area. It was also submitted that any grievous injury is not alleged but even for a simple injury any injury report was not produced before the trial court. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellants produced sufficient documentary evidence before the trial court to show that the disputed land was already in possession of the appellants/accused and the order of competent court to execute bond had also been passed prior to the date of occurrence declaring the possession of the appellant/accused over the land under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Referring Ext.’A’ it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the disputed land was purchased by Sunita Devi, wife of appellant Rajdeo Paswan and the details of the land has been mentioned therein as Khata No.15, Plot No.33 and Area 9/1/14 decimals. Further referring Ext.’C’ it was pointed out that in a proceeding between Sunita Devi wife of appellant Rajdeo Paswan and the informant Girdhari Paswan, the possession was declared vide order dated 8.12.1998 i.e. prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 30.12.1998 in favour of Sunita Devi. It was also pointed out that vide Ext.’F’, the informant had filed Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999 against the order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. but the revision was dismissed on 11.5.2000 and thus it was submitted that possession of the land was already with the appellants/accused and that was also declared by a Court of Competent jurisdiction and in such view of the matters, the claim of the informant that he was in possession of the land is falsified. 3 In view of the documents as produced aforesaid on behalf of the appellants, there are reasons to believe that the appellants/accused party was already in possession of the land and, therefore, the claim of the informant that he was in possession of the land becomes highly suspicious and the very substratum of the case that the occurrence took place in course of ousting the informant party at the hands of the appellants/accused becomes doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out Ext.’9’ which is an order dated 15.7.1998 as passed under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. by Executing Magistrate wherein the son of the informant Girdhari Paswan was ordered to execute bond with respect to dispute over the disputed land. Thus considering the very claim of the informant that he was in possession of the land and the occurrence took place in course of an attempt of the appellants/accused for ousting him from the land becomes doubtful. Learned counsel also pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the manner of the occurrence. Thus, on hearing, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadows of doubt and, therefore, they are acquitted of the charges. The conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly, (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-