Md. Kausar Ali V The State of  Jharkhand (2020) 

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


       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.


 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *