Case title – Md. Kausar Ali V The State of Jharkhand (2020)
Court name – High Court of Jharkhand
Coram – Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Introduction
This legal article aims to give readers a brief summary of the above case in an easily understandable manner .This case has been decided under IPC as this case happened before 2020.It is the case for mischief which was dealt under section 427 of IPC and this provision corresponds to the section 324(a) of the new Act Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 substituting IPC.
Facts in brief
The complainant was in possession of a land
more than 30 years. In 2009,around the month of
march, the accused started dumping iron ores,
boulders etc.. This made the land infertile and
incultivatable. It also caused loss for the
complainant of the value of ₹ 10,000.So, the
complainant raised a complaint on the accused
under the sections 427&447 of IPC. Both the
complainant and accused produced sale deed over
the same property before the court. On evaluation
of the materials of record and witnesses, the
sessions Court convicted the accused. So, the
accused filed a criminal revision petition challenging
the legality, propriety and correctness of the
judgment by learned Sessions judge.
Issues raised
1.Is the sale deed produced by the petitioner’s
counsel is legal?
2.Who is the owner of the land when the iron
ores were dumped?
3.Were the essentials of section 427& 447 of
IPC fulfilled?
Arguments advanced
Petitioner side –
The registered sale deed of the disputed
property produced by their side has not been examined properly in the sessions court. Also, the
case is of civil realm and not criminal.
Complainant side
The complainant is the sole owner of the
property. The accused did not have any right, title
or possession over the land. He had been in the
possession of the land for more than 30 years. He
had bought the land from Sokra Gope in 1972 and
from then he cultivated paddy and urad in the field.
He also produced 2 witnesses supporting his
arguments. He himself was the III witness.
Statements of the witness
The complainant bought the land in 1972 and
he had been in possession of the land for more than
30 years. He cultivates paddy and urad in the field.
In the month of march in 2009,the accused started
dumping iron ores , boulders and manganese in the
disputed land. The petitioner also planted a crusher
machine in the land and there was also a threat of
assault if the complainant questions the petitioner.
Court’s analysis and rationing
After careful examination of the evidences
produced, the court found that the property was
bought by the complainant from Mr. Sokra Gope by
executing a registered sale deed in the year 1972
and he was in possession over the land for more
than 30 years. In the year 2008,Sokra’s sons resold
the same property to the petitioner while the
complainant had the title without his knowledge. So
obviously, the complainant is the owner of the land
even in 2009 when the iron ores are dumped. The statement of witnesses proved that the iron ores were dumped in the complainant’s land this diminishing the value of cultivatable land and made it infertile thus causing heavy damage to the complainant.
Also, the ingredients of section 427 of IPC that
the accused had knowledge that his work would
cause wrongful loss the complainant and the
damage caused also exceeded ₹50.
The essentials of section 447 of IPC – the
complainant was in the possession of land and a
criminal trespass was done by the petitioner was
also satisfied.
Thus, the complainant has proved that the
petitioner has caused mischief to his land.
Judgment
After detailed reasoning, the court uphold
the previous decision by convicting the
petitioner. Since the petitioner has already
undergone imprisonment for 1 year and facing
criminal prosecution for 10 years, the sentence
was stopped but the fine was increased to
7,200 from 2,200.Also, the court held that the
case is not purely civil in nature but also
criminal in nature.
Author: Vishali.R.N –
TNDALU – School of Excellence in Law
