IMPORTANT POINT
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 143 and 379—Judgement passed by lower appellate court acquitting accused persons for offence under Sections 143 and 379 of IPC and affirming order of acquittal under Section 411 of IPC does not call for any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.—Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar and Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner who is the informant of the case.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

4. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the informant of the case against the judgement dated 06.06.2013 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dumka in two criminal appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 whereby the learned appellate court reversed the judgement of conviction of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and affirmed the order of their acquittal under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The trial court judgement dated 12.01.2011 was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 92 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. No. 102 of 2011. The opposite party nos. 2 to 7 were charged under Sections 143, 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court had acquitted them under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and convicted them only under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. Against the order of acquittal of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, the State had filed an independent criminal appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 and against the order of conviction under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 had filed appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011. Both the criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 were tagged together and were decided by the impugned judgement dated 06.06.2013. As per the impugned judgement dated 06.06.2013, Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2011 was allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2011 was dismissed which ultimately resulted in acquittal of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 under Sections 143, 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner in the present case is the informant of the case who is aggrieved by the ultimate acquittal of all the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

Submission of the Petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned lower appellate court had rightly convicted the accused under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code by holding that the defence could not prove that there was a bonafide land dispute between the parties in connection with the pond involved in the present case as the Exhibit A did not disclose the details of the property in relation with which the title suit was going on between the parties, but the learned appellate court had relied upon the suggestion given to the prosecution witness to hold that there was a bonafide land dispute between the parties and acquitted the accused under Sections 143 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. He also submits that the learned lower appellate court has wrongly recorded that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has acquitted the accused. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been recorded by the learned lower appellate court that the P.W-1 had stated that only accused Jago Rai and Garga Rai were fishing from the pond using the net but upon perusal of his deposition it will transpire that he had taken the name of all the accused persons.

7. He has also submitted that the learned trial court had wrongly acquitted the accused for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code against which the State had filed appeal, but the appeal of the State was wrongly dismissed by the appellate court. Learned counsel submits that impugned judgement passed by the learned lower appellate court is perverse and fit to be set-aside and the o