Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhani Ram vs The State Of M.P. on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 176 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
DHANI RAM, S/O GANESH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANWARI P.S. BHAGWA
DISTRICT CHATTARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2005
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Chattarpur in Special Case No. 02/2004
whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission
of offence under Section 3(1)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further
directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. The appellant
was initially tried under Section 294, 506-II of IPC as well as Section 3(1)
(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(iv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant Shivlal
was granted lease of government land in survey No. 89/1 measuring area
0.500 hectare. He was given possession of the land by the Patwari and
Naib Tehsildar. On 27.09.2003 when complainant Shivlal went on his land
then it was found that the present appellant was constructed house over the
land leased to complainant. He was accompanied by Choukidar-Kishoo
and Kapoora Ahirwar. He tried to persuade the appellant that he should not
take forceful possession of the land leased to complainant but the appellant
did not agree. On these allegations FIR was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
gravely erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
It is stated that there is no material to show that the appellant is forcefully
dispossessed the complainant from his land and the findings recorded in
para 15 are erroneous and perverse. It is further submitted that no patta was
filed before the trial Court and the trial court has proceeded on
conjunctures and surmises. It is further submitted that there is litigation
before revenue courts between the appellant and plaintiff and thus no
prosecution under Section 3(1)(v) could have taken place.
4. Per contra learned Government Advocate has supported the
prosecution case and supported the judgment of conviction. It is vehemently
submitted by leaned counsel for the State that the offence/incident is duly
proved against the present appellant, looking to the material brought on
record. The defence could not demolish the case of the prosecution and the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be maintained.
5. This court has carefully gone through the evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution. The Patwari (PW/3) in para 4 of his cross
examination states that the complainant was initially given lease in survey
No. 89 and 90 which was later on modified to survey No. 89/1. However,
there is no patta produced on record and only one copy of the revenue
Khasra has been placed on record which was issued by the Patwari for the
year 2003-04 and mentions that the complainant Shivlal is having
possession over the land in Survey No. 89/1. The Patwari has further stated
in his deposition that there is construction over the spot and it is correct to
say that there is already construction over the land on which dispute has
taken place. The Patwari has given evidence as to direction and location
of construction on the land. The Patwari was confronted with the question
that the construction is since many years, however, the Patwari stated that
he does not have any knowledge of this fact. Thus it is clear that the
Patwari was non-committal as to position whether the land patta was given
on land on which there was construction, or not.
6. The villager Kishoo (PW/7) has turned hostile and upon his
cross-examination has stated that the present appellant was not constructing
house over the land given to the complainant.
7. One other eye witness Bandu (PW/6) has also turned hostile. Yet
another eye witness Har Prasad (PW/5) has also turned hostile.
8. The complainant Shivlal (PW/1) in para 9 of his deposition stated
that he never cultivated the land prior to date on which incident is said to
have occurred. In para 8 of his deposition he also stated that he does not
know that the construction of the appellant is how much old. In para 3 of
his examination in chief the complainant has stated that he got possession of
the land much after getting lease. Thus it is admitted by the complainant that
he did not get possession of the land on the same date he got the lease.
However, no proceedings of delivery of possession were placed on record
by the prosecution to show that the complainant was placed in possession
of leased land on which date.
9. From the deposition of the complainant PW/1 it also appears that
there is dispute of boundaries of the leased land and the Patwari has also
stated that initially the lease was given on different survey numbers and
then there was a modification of the lease order. However, no documents
to show all these facts were placed on record by the prosecution.
10. In view of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of accused/appellant under Section 3(1)(v) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed by giving benefit of doubt,
the appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court
record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
MISHRA
