ORDER :

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Madhukar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

3. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned courts below are perverse and are fit to be set aside. Learned counsel has submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and accordingly, the petitioners could not have been convicted for offence under Section 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 949 equivalent citation (1972)3 SCC 841. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that sentence of the petitioners is also on the excessive side in view of the fact that as per the allegation, the petitioners had entered into the field of the informant and had taken away paddy crop worth Rs. 4,000/- only and they have been sentenced for two years simple imprisonment under Section 379 IPC and have also been convicted for the offence under Section 447 IPC for a period of two months. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody at least from the date 17.2.2012, when they surrendered, to 29.03.2012, when they were released on bail. Learned counsel has also submitted that case is of the year 2002 and much time has elapsed from the date of incident.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and out of seven petitioners before this court, except petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 7, rest of them have history of previous conviction as recorded by the learned courts below and the conviction of these persons was in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 27/2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3200 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 147,148,324,323 IPC in connection with the same piece of land i.e. Khata No. 57. Learned counsel submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any sympathetic view of this court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

Finding of the Court

7. As per the prosecution case, the complainant who was examined as PW - 4 has stated that on 10.12.2002, at about 9 am to 1 pm, the alleged occurrence had occurred and all the accused persons harvested the paddy crop from his field, which was sown by him and the value of the stolen paddy crop was Rs.4,000/-. The land in question relating to khata No.57 was purchased by the father of the complainant having area total 30.5 decimal, on which the complainant had sown the paddy crop. It is further stated that on 19.11.2002, at about 8.30 am, the complainant had gone to see his paddy filed, then all the accused persons armed with lathi, hasua, tangi and bricks, assaulted the complainant, for which FIR was instituted. It has been further stated that at the time of occurrence of paddy harvesting, the accused persons namely Tileshwar Lohra, Santosh Lohra were making bundle of paddy crop and the accused Bhombha Lohra, Boura Lohra, Bigal Lohra, Puran Lohara and others were carrying the paddy bundle.

8. From the side of complainant, altogether five witnesses were examined including PW - 4, the complainant, who has fully supported the prosecution case and had also given the details regarding the ownership of the place of occurrence land. He has also stated that prior of this occurrence, on 19.11.2002, another occurrence had taken place by some accused persons, who had assaulted the informant, for which Sikidiri P.S. Case No.27 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3200 of 2002 was registered, in which, the accused persons were convicted. Th