A bona fide claim of right can be a good defense to a prosecution for theft.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. From perusal of the order-sheets of the case, it appears that Order No. 12 dated 29.09.2021 has been wrongly typed as Order No. 12 dated 29.07.2021. Accordingly, Order No. 12 dated 29.07.2021 be treated as Order No. 12 dated 29.09.2021.

4. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2011 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed and they were acquitted for the charges under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners has been partly allowed.

5. The learned trial court vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in G.R. Case No. 708/2005 had convicted the petitioners under Sections 144, 447, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the judgments passed by the learned courts below are fit to be set-aside on account of the fact that the impugned judgments are perverse. He submitted that the learned courts below have passed the impugned judgments by referring to the earlier conviction of the petitioners passed in G.R. Case No. 653/2002 which was confirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2006, against which Cr. Rev. No. 203/2009 was preferred before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2009. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidences which were brought from the side of the defence, particularly Exhibit-A related to the judgment passed in favour of the accused party in S.A.R. Case No. 33/2004-05 dated 12.12.2006, have not been considered by the learned courts below. The said judgment in S.A.R. Case No. 33/2004-05 was passed in a petition for restoration of land, but the accused-party of the present case was found in possession of the land and the S.A.R. case was dismissed. However, during the course of argument, it has not been disputed that the S.A.R. case for restoration of land was not filed by the informant party of the present case, but by another person.

7. The learned counsel further referred to Paragraph-16 of the trial court judgment wherein the evidence of PW-4 has been recorded and PW-4 at Paragraph-16 of the evidence has stated that the informant of the present case had also filed a case under Section 71 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of land, but the same was dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that the very fact that the informant-party had also filed an application for restoration of land itself indicates that the accused-party were in possession of the land. He also submitted that the possession of the informant-party over the land-in-question is in doubt and it was not proved that the informant party had cultivated the land. He submitted that the learned trial court has recorded that the informant-party was in possession of the property and on that basis, has convicted the a