Case: Lallan Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Bihar

2. In brief the prosecution case was that Anant Prasad Jaiswal, PW 2, Gupteshwar Nath Jaiswal, PW 4, and Baijnath Sahu, PW 9, had gone on the morning of March 23, 1962, with a number of labourers, for harvesting the Rabi crop of plot No. 1203 of Khata No. 158. They harvested the crop till about 11-30 a.m. when the accused party turned up, with various other persons, variously armed. They attacked the members of the prosecution party, including Sheokaran Ahir who died. It was further alleged that most of the labourers succeeded in running away but a number of persons were chased and assaulted at three different places.3. The defence of the appellants was that the appellant, Lallan Singh, was in actual possession of Plot No. 1203 and that the prosecution party came in a mob to dispossess him and actually started looting the crop grown by Lallan Singh and this resulted in the occurrence.4. The Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case. On the question of possession the learned Sessions Judge went through the documents and the oral evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution party was in possession of plot No. 1203. This finding was upheld by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
6. It seems to us that there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel. Ext. 2 was clearly misread by the Highis admitted before us that there is no other proof regarding Ext. 17. In view of the ruling of this Court there is no presumption regarding the genuineness of Ext. 17 and the High Court was wrong in treating it as genuine on the ground that it was more than 30 years old document.17. The learned counsel for the State says that there is oral evidence to show that the prosecution was in possession of this Khatabut, in our opinion, in such matters oral evidence cannot override the inference available from the documentary evidence.11. The next document we have on the record is some rent receipts filed on behalf of the prosecution for 1341 to 1361 Fasli granted by the Dwaraon Raj, but these receipts may well be in respect of the amounts given as tenure holders. Further these receipts are in respect of Khewat No. 2 and no Khata number is mentioned therein. It is true that the appellants have not also produced any receipts showing payment of the rent to the alleged tenure holders, but it may be that no receipts was granted for Batai rent.The next document we have on the record is some rent receipts filed on behalf of the prosecution for 1341 to 1361 Fasli granted by the Dwaraon Raj, but these receipts may well be in respect of the amounts given as tenure holders. Further these receipts are in respect of Khewat No. 2 and no Khata number is mentioned therein. It is true that the appellants have not also produced any receipts showing payment of the rent to the alleged tenure holders, but it may be that no receipts was granted for Batai. Again by order dated December 10, 1960, Ext. H/c, the application of Lallan Singh under Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act praying to commute the rent from kind into cash of Khata No. 158 plot Nos. 1203, 1206 and 1207 was decided in his favour. The officer held that the applicant was in possession. An appeal was filed against this order