JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard Mr. Javed Sultan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.02.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibgunj in Criminal Appeal No.33/2010 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioners were convicted by the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibgunj in P.C.R Case No.03/2004 corresponding to T.R. No.03/2010 under Sections 379 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6247 of 2021 has been filed for taking the additional documents i.e. photocopy of the certified copy of Judgment dated 11.06.2015 passed in P.C.R. No.48 of 2003/ T.R. No.04/2015 (Firoz Alam Vs. Kanhai Rajak and others) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sahibganj and photocopy of the certified copy of the Judgment dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-1, Sahibganj in Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2003 (Md. Afroz Alam Vs. Sudha Devi and others) as evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners have direct bearing upon the just decision of the present case. It has been prayed that the aforesaid two judgments passed in P.C.R. No.48 of 2003 and Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2003 may be taken as additional evidence in the present case as the said two judgments were delivered much after the judgments passed by the learned courts below in the present case.

5. While advancing the arguments with regard to the interlocutory application, the learned counsel submitted that the dispute involved in the P.C.R. Case No.48 of 2003 and Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2003 were between the same parties. In P.C.R. No.48 of 2003, the complainant was Firoz Alam, who is the complainant in the present case also, and the accused persons were Shambhu Rajak, Kanai Rajak, Sunil Rajak and Jatla Miyan and in the present case, Shambhu Rajak, Kanai Rajak and Sunil Rajak are the convicts and the petitioners before this Court. He further submitted that in P.C.R. No.48 of 2003, the date of incident was 12.03.2003 and in the present case, the date of incident is 05.01.2004, but the dispute was almost similar in connection with the premises involved in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that so far, the Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2003 is concerned, the same was filed by Afroz Alam who is the brother of the complainant of the present case and defendants were Sudha Devi wife of Late Kamal Rajak; Kanhai Rajak S/o Late Kamal Rajak; Shambhu Rajak S/o Late Kamal Rajak; Sunita Devi D/o Late Kamal Rajak and wife of Sunil Rajak; Fulo Devi D/o Late Kamal Rajak and wife of Mahendra Rajak. The said suit was dismissed on contest. He further submitted that in the said suit, the same premise as involved in the present case was the subject matter of dispute.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 opposed the interlocutory application for adducing additional evidence. He submitted that the date of incident in connection with P.C.R. Case No.48 of 2003 is different from that of the present case and the parties in Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2003 are also different, in as much as, the complainant was not a party in the title eviction suit. He further submitted that otherwise also, the decision in the title suit has got no bearing in the present case.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in I.A. No.6247 of 2021, this Court finds that so far as P.C.R. Case No.48 of 2003 is concerned, there is no doubt