An alleged theft is not substantiated when both parties claim joint ownership, negating the criminal aspect of the case.

ORDER :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

Both the criminal revision being Cr. Revision No.658 of 2017 and Cr. Revision No.511 of 2017 have been heard together and are being disposed of together, since, both have arisen out of common judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No.11/2014 by which the criminal appeals preferred on behalf of the petitioners, have been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2014 passed by Sri Purushottam Kumar Goswami, J.M., Ist Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No.04 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No.493 of 2014 by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under section 379 of the I.P.C and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of three (03) months and R.I for a period of one month respectively.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant namely Haro Nayak and one Khago Nayak and Akal Nayak were Khatiyani Raiyats of the land pertaining to Khata no.47, Village-Dharampur and before survey settlement they partitioned their land among themselves and came in possession of respective shares. The land, constituting the place of occurrence, was under ownership and possession of Akal Nayak. It is stated that said Akal Nayak sold out the land and other land to Mosomat Jamuni Telin and her son Balki Nayak vide registered sale deed no.2524 dt.27.05.1940. Later on Balki Nayak died leaving behind two sons namely, Gultan Nayak and Jaideo Nayak and they have been coming in possession over the land since then and paying land revenue to State of Bihar and thereafter to State of Jharkhand. It is alleged that like other harvest season, this season also complainant had planted paddy in the land forming place of occurrence. However, on 27.12.2007 at 8.00 a.m., all accused persons having armed with Lathi, Spear, Hasua by forming an unlawful assembly along with 15-20 other persons came at the place of occurrence and started cutting paddy grown by the complainant. When complainant and witnesses objected then accused person got enraged and they assaulted him by slaps and fists and also pelted stone on the complainant and Witness no.4-Jaideo Nayak and the accused persons had got confined them and threatened to kill if they tried to escape from there. It has been alleged that accused persons took away 50 Mounds of paddy worth Rs.10,000/-. Complainant gave information of occurrence to the police but police, even after assurance, took no step against the accused persons and on 01.01.2008 the police said that they will not take any action and hence the complaint petition was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the disputed land is a joint family property and the allegation of cutting 50 Mounds of Paddy crops amounting to Rs.10,000/- is false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioners have been declared joint owners of the said property in question in Eviction Suit No.03 of 2008 passed by Sri Nishikant, learned Additional Munsif-VII, Giridih vide judgment dated 30.06.2018 and the complainant has failed to prove his case who was the plaintiff before the Court below and hence it is submitted that the petitioners may be acquitted for the offence under section 379 of the I.P.C and the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed and submitted that all the petitioners had cut 50 Mounds of Paddy crops worth Rs.10,000/- which is supported from the evidence of the complainant witnesses. On the point of possession of land, learned APP has fairly submitted that both the parties ar