IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the guilt of the accused under IPC Sections 147 and 379 were valid and upheld, while also allowing for sentence modification based on the passage of time and the personal circumstances of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Both the criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 730 of 2000, whereby the petitioners were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo further S.I. of six months and R.I. of three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo further S.I. of six months. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently and period of detention already undergone, if any was ordered to be set off against the sentence imposed. However, the sentence passed by the learned trial court was modified to the extent that the petitioners would have to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, they should have to undergo S.I. of one month and S.I. of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and in default of fine, they should have to undergo S.I. of two months. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently and period of detention already undergone, if any was ordered to be set off against the sentence imposed.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the land of the nomenclature “Doka Kudar” as it is known in the common parlance under Khata No. 222 under Khewat No. 5/2 situated in village Pandra appertaining to the Plots. 610, 630 and 631 ad-measuring 0.04, 0.15 and 2.63 acres total 2.82 acres is recorded as “Bakast Bhuihari Land” in the name of one Gandu Oraon who happens to be the grand father of the complainant in the Rivisional Survey Record of Rights. It is alleged that after the grandfather of the complainant, the land is question was inherited by his father Sukra Oraon and his uncle Dharo Oraon.

It is further alleged that the uncle of the complainant Dharo Oraon along with his five sons, namely, Prem Oraon, Melkhos Oraon, Novel Oraon and Dan Oraon and Sunder Oraon are permanently residing in the District of Hazaribag since after the Revisional Survey and accordingly the complainant with his brother Raisan Oraon are looking after and managing the cultivation of the family lands which includes the present land in question.

It is further alleged that the accused persons are the owners of land recorded in Khewat No. 5/1 of the same village and have got no concern with the land in question of the complainant under Khewat No. 5/2. It is further alleged that during the recent survey operation the accused no. 2 Sukra Oraon, as arrayed in the memorandum of complaint who passed away during the pendency of this case, filed a “Tanaza” claiming that the land of Khewat No. 5/2 was his land stating that the father and uncle of the complainant were not allowing him to possess the said land, but however the claim of this accused was dismissed by the survey authorities. It is further alleged that thereafter this accused did not take any legal step either for the correction of the entry in the record of rights or for the recovery of possession and thus, the family of the complainant is thereby coming under an uninterrupted possession over the land for a pretty long period of time.

It is further alleged that as usual in the year 2000 also, the complainant and his brother cultivated paddy crop over the land peacefully which grew and was ripe for harvestation. It is alleged that on the date of o