2026:JHHC:15173 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016 -------- 1. Gajendra Saw, S/o. Shiv Sharan Saw 2. Manohar Saw @ Manohar Prasad, S/o. Shiv Charan Saw 3. Manoj Saw, S/o. Late Balram Saw 4. Jai Kishun Saw, S/o. Nirmal Saw 5. Nirmal Karmali, S/o. Prayag Karmali 6. Kaneshwar Saw, S/o. Late Prayag Saw. All are R/o. Vill.- Kamta, P.O. & P.S.- Gola, Dist.- Hazaribag (Now Ramgarh), Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bishun Saw, S/o. Late Shyam Lal Sao, R/o. Vill.- Kamta, P.O. & P.S.- Gola, Dist.- Hazaribag (Now Ramgarh). …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate C.A.V. On: 21/04/2026 Pronounced On:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 751 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners were held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 & 427 of the I.P.C. and the learned Trial Court instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, released the accused 2026:JHHC:15173 2 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016) persons on extending the benefits of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing bonds of Rs. 5,000/- each with one sureties keeping peace and good behavior for a period of two years. The convicts also challenged the above judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag preferring an appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 134 of 2012 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.08.2016, upholding the impugned judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant's mother Massomat Maricho had purchased the land appertaining to Khata No. 104 Plot No. 1036, area 23 decimals through registered sale deed executed by Masomat Somari, wife of Gobra Teli vide Sale Deed No. 525of 1959. It is alleged that the complainant's mother came to exclusive possession of the purchased land and died in the year 1998 leaving behind her three sons, namely Ram Prasad Sao, Kishun Sao and Bishun Sao. It is further alleged that the complainant alongwith his brother had grown Gora Dhaan in the current Fasli year and on 10.07.2006, the complainant alongwith his son Surendra Sao and his nephew Chatrughan Sao went to see his paddy crop and found that all the accused persons were ploughing his field and destroyed the complainant crop which was grown up to 5"- 6", as such, it caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. It is further alleged that upon protest of complainant, the accused persons became furious and started abusing in filthy language and accused 2026:JHHC:15173 3 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016) Shiv Saran Sao and Sanjay Sao assaulted the complainant and his nephew Chatrughan by fist and blow and other accused persons were surrounding them. It is further alleged that the accused Gajendra Sao snatched wrist watch of the complainant and Manohar Sao took away Rs. 200/- from the pocket of complaint's son Surendra Sao. The matter was reported to at the police station but complainant was advised to file case before the Court. 4. After conducting inquiry into the complaint petition, the learned Trial Court found prima facie case for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 427 of the I.P.C. and summons were issued to the accused persons (petitioners). 5. The accused persons appeared on summons but did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 04 witnesses were examined by the complainant. I. C.W.-1 Bisun Sao (Complainant) II. C.W.-2 Hiralal Sao III. C.W.-3 Chatrughan Sao IV. C.W.-4 Surendra Sao Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant. 1. Exhibit-1 Signature of the complaint upon complaint petition. 7. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence, plea of innocence and false implication and the defence has also examined 01 witness, namely, Kameshwar Ram and one documentary evidence has 2026:JHHC:15173 4 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016) also been adduced, i.e., C/c of registered Sale Deed in writing and signature of Kuldeep Sahay, a deed writer, marked as Exhibit-A. 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of respective parties, arrived on conclusion and held the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 147 & 427 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment, released them under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh. Submission on behalf of the Petitiioners:- 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Appellate Court without recording any valid reasons for differing from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court acted in illegal and perverse manner while appreciating the evidences deposed by the respective witnesses and the learned Trial Court has also not considered the document filed on behalf of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant's has also admitted land dispute in between the party in respect of the suit land and has also given contradictory and discrepancy evidence in spite of that the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Indu Singh @ Indu Rai Vs. Sunder Lal Jain" as reported in BBCJ page 366. The un-rebutted and un-impeachable testimony of complainant has been withheld by the learned Trial Court on mere conjecture and surmises. Therefore, impugned judgment 2026:JHHC:15173 5 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016) passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. Submission on behalf of the Opposite Party:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that complainant was in peaceful possession over the land for a long period of time and continuously cultivating the said land. It is further submitted that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant have consistently supported and corroborated the fact that Gora Dhan was grown by the complainant and the same was ploughed and destroyed by the accused persons with intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. So far the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Indu Singh @ Indu Rai Vs. Sunder Lal Jain" as reported in BBCJ page 366 is concerned, the fact and circumstances of the aforesaid case is totally different from the present case. It is further submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference as it is based upon unimpeachable evidence available on record as it has been proved from the evidence available on record. Therefore, this revision being devoid of merits is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. It appears that there is concurrent finding of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court on factual aspect of the case. There may be land dispute between the parties as both are claiming on the same land through their respective Sale Deed. Such 2026:JHHC:15173 6 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1552 of 2016) type of rights must be agitated and settled by the learned Civil Court but the petitioners have taken the law into their own hands indulging in destroying the crops and assaulting the complainant party. Therefore, the recourse taken by the petitioners cannot be justified under law. 12. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision application, which stands dismissed. 13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith trial court records be sent back to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated: 15/05/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 18/05/2026