15.07.2025 Sl. No.16 AMR Ct.No.655 CRA 76 of 2001 In the matter of : Smt. Sarbani Sau .... Appellant Mr. Soumya Basu Roychowdhury …for the Appellant Mr. Soham Banerjee, ld. Amicus Curiae …for the O.P. No. 3 Mr. Avishek Sinha …for the State 1. The instant appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 19th August, 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhargram in connection with C.R. Case No. 240 of 1998. 2. By passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred at the behest of the appellant/complainant. 2 4. It is stated by the appellant/complainant that on the relevant date and time, all the accused persons entered into her land which measures about 23 decimals in R.S. Plot No. 41 corresponding to present Plot No. 43. It is further stated that all the accused persons cut the paddy from the land which was sowed by the appellant/complainant. The accused persons allegedly trespassed into the case land armed with ‘lathis’ and ‘da’ at about or in between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. and snatched the bundles of paddy cut by the complainant party. The accused persons then cut the remaining paddy from the land and took away the same. As a result the complainant suffered loss of Rs.2000/-. 5. On the basis of the complaint, the instant case was started and charge was framed by the Trial Court under Sections 447/506 (Part-1)/379 IPC against all the three accused persons. 6. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court and the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During evidence taking process, the complainant (PW-1) narrated the incident as stated in the complaint. During cross- examination, she stated that B.L. & L.R.O submitted a report stated that the accused no. 1/ Rajendra Sau is a ‘bargadar’ in respect of the case land and the R.S. R.O.R. stands in the name of Rajendra Sau as ‘bargadar’ in respect of the case plot. In civil suit the accused was 3 held to be a ‘bargadar’ under the complainant. In cross examination PW1 failed to state who cultivated the paddy and she said that PW4 (Rakhal Mahato) ploughed her land. On the other hand PW4 stated in his evidence that he could not say who cultivated the land and in cross examination this witness stated that Gangadhar Mahato, Birendra Chowdhury ploughed the land on behalf of Sarbani (complainanat). 8. It appears that the complainant was not found in possession of the land at the relevant point of time where as the accused Rajendra was found to be ‘bargadar’ and in possession by the decree passed by the Civil Court. So, there is no question of tress pass in respect of the case land and consequently case of theft is not maintainable against the accused Rajendra. 9. I have gone through the other depositions, as cited on behalf of the complainant and I find there is nothing to believe their statements. 10. During pendency of this appeal, the principal accused, Rajendra Sau and his wife Arati Sau have been expired and the instant appeal stood abated against them by passing an order of this court on 10.01.2023. The present respondentts are the relations of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4 11. I find nothing materials in the evidences for which the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may be interfered with. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court dated 19th August, 2000 in connection with C.R. Case No. 240 of 1998. 13. Thus, the criminal appeal is hereby disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this order along with TCR be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately. 15. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon complying with all legal formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)