SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansari son of Usman Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal(SJ) No.360 of 2010
Decided on : 24-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP

The main legal point established in the judgment is that trespassing on land and using abusive language and threats can lead to convictions under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Headnote:

Trespass - Land Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Section 447, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for trespassing on the land of the complainant, a lady of Scheduled Tribe, and stealing her belongings while using abusive language and threats.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants trespassed on the land and committed offences after the complainant was legally given possession of the land. The court upheld the conviction under section 447 IPC and section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants trespassed on the land and committed offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of possession being legally given to the complainant and the abusive language and threats used by the appellants to uphold the convictions.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was modified to 6 months SI for the conviction under section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with the fine amount remaining. The sentence of 3 months S.I. passed under section 447 IPC required no interference. Both the sentences were to run concurrently, and the period already undergone by the appellants was set-off. Appellants' bail bonds were cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

Ratnaker Bhengra, J:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 19.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 212 of 2006, arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No. 124 of 2005 in G.R. Case No. 549 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga had convicted the appellants under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants were sentenced to undergo SI for three months under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and SI of two years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each under section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were to undergo SI for one month each and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case arose out of the complaint case no. 58 of 2005 dated 03.06.2005 filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, by the complainant PW-3 Daso Orain. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant was a lady of Scheduled Tribe and resident of village Chandlaso, PS Kuru, District-Lohardaga. On 22.05.2005 at about 7.00 am, appellants namely Alam Ansari and Usman Ansari armed with iron rod along with other appellants formed an unlawful assembly. Appellants Alam Ansari and Usman Ansari, firstly broke the lock of the house of the complainant and thereafter, all the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and stole away kitchen utensils, rice, pulse, bed with bed sheet valued Rs. 3000/-. The appellants threatened the complainant and her husband to kill and abused them by saying “kolh Oraon bhago nahi to uda denge”. The complainant further stated that the genesis of the offence was that there was a case under section 71A of CNT Act between Jura Oraon (PW-1 or the husband of the complainant Daso Orain) and appellants Alam Ansari, Usman Ansari and Israil Ansari in which delivery of possession had been effected to the complainant side on 25.04.2005 by the Court of L.R.D.C., Lohardaga.

3. The complaint petition was forwarded under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of the case and investigation. On the basis of complaint petition Kuru P.S. Case No. 124 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 380, 504 of the IPC and 3/ 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against altogether nine named accused persons or the appellants herein. Charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 447 and 448 IPC and section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.

4. (i) Prosecution had examined altogether eight witnesses out of whom PW-3 is Daso Orain, who is the complainant of the case; PW-1 is Jura Oraon, who is the husband of the complainant; PW-2 is Jagdeo Oraon; PW-4 is Sushil Oraon, who is the son of the complainant; PW-5 is Satish Prasad, who is the Investigating Officer of the case; PW-6 is Tiwari Oraon; PW-7 is Budheswar Oraon and PW-8 is Manoj Kumar Singh, who is the Deputy S.P.

(ii) Prosecution had also filed documentary evidences. Ext.-1 is certified copy of the khatiyan in the name of Gandura Oraon, Ext.-2 is khatiyan of R.S. khata no. 138 in the name of Mathia Oraon, Ext.-3 is certified copy of the order of L.R.D.C., passed in SAR Case No. 14/2003, Ext.-4 is the certified copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner passed in SAR Appeal Case no. 6 R15/2005-2006 and Ext.-5 is the copy of the delivery of possession of the land effected by Circle Officer, Kuru.

5. Defence had also filed certified copy of the order dated 19.03.1981 passe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top