Sumran Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16552 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sumran Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2024

                              1                           CRA-2435-2006
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                      ON THE 6 th OF JUNE, 2024
                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2435 of 2006

BETWEEN:-
1.    SUMRAN YADAV S/O GODHAR YADAV, AGED
      ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION
      JAMUNTOLA KARANJIYA PS. BICHHIYA DIST.
      MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    GULLU YADAV S/O GODHAR YADAV, AGED
      ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION
      JAMUNTOLA KARANJIYA PS. BICHHIYA DIST.
      MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    NARAYAN DAS S/O PANKAPURSHOTTAMLAL
      PANKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      CULTIVATION JAMUNTOLA KARANJIYA PS.
      BICHHIYA DIST. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SMT. NANSABAI YADAV W/O SURESH YADAV,
      AGED    ABOUT     35   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      HOUSEWIFE    JAMUNTOLA KARANJIYA PS.
      BICHHIYA DIST. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI K.L. PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. PS.
A.J.K.MANDLA DIST. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENT
(BY BY SHRI VINOD TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )


      Reserved on :        24.04.2024
      Pronounced on :      06.06.2024


      This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved for order,
                                     2                            CRA-2435-2006
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra
pronounced the following :
                                   JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved with the judgment and sentenced passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Mandala in Special Case No. 18/2006 dated 7-12-2006 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 379 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 6 months respectively with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainant Kalicharan is

the owner of land bearing Survey No.475, 477 and 479. The land Survey No. 475 ad-measuring 0.20 hectare, Narayandas and Gulai have tress passed in the area of 0.06 hectare and Sumran has tress passed over 0.02 hectare. In this land they are having the possession. The report was made before the Police Station, AJK Mandala on 10.7.2002 and 14.3.2005 and the compromise was arrived on 9.11.2005. The complainant's wife Somwati bai, son Pappu, daughter Usha Bai went to reap the paddy crop then the appellant Sumran Yadav , Gulau Yadav stopped them from reaping crop. His son Pappu returned from the field and informed him. On that he along with the Up- Sarpanch Riyaz Khan (PW/2) reached on the field Santram, Jariya, Pappu Sahu also reached on the spot. He asked to the accused persons why they are objecting to reap the crop. The accused persons started abusing him and the persons present there were consoling the accused persons. The appellant Nansa Bai assaulted the complainant Kalicharan with fists on his face. The complainant filed the written complaint to SHO SC/ST Kalyan Thana, Mandla on that enquiry was conducted by police authorities. After preliminary enquiry the case was 3 CRA-2435-2006

registered as crime No. 2/2006 under Section 447, 294/34 and 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 on 19.1.2006. After investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The Trial court framed the charges under Section 294, 447, 223, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The appellants have denied the charges and prayed for trial after recording the prosecution witnesses the accused persons were examined. Accused persons have taken defence that they have not tress passed on the land of the complainant they were having the possession over the disputed land since long time. Trial court after hearing the parties have passed the judgment and convicted and sentenced the appellants as in para 1 of the judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellants on the caste basis, abuses the complainant or his family members but after that trial court has convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant and his witnesses. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that any demarcation was done as per the law and the possession of appellants was found over the agricultural land of the complainant or they were having forceful possession over the disputed land and argued that the complainant has lodged criminal prosecution to obtain the possession of the appellants' agricultural land and the prosecution failed to

demonstrate that the victim was entitled for the possession over the suit land. Thus, trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants and submitted that appellants be acquitted from all the charges.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer Shri Vinod Tiwari has submitted that trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. There is sufficient evidence 4 CRA-2435-2006 on record which demonstrate that the appellants have forcefully taken the possession of the complainant's land and forcefully harvested the paddy crop of the victim. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment.

6. I have gone through the record, on this point. In this case, the main reason of the dispute is that as per the prosecution the appellants were having forceful possession over the disputed land of the victim that was community of scheduled tribes.

7. The prosecution has failed to prove that the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority. The victim belongs to the scheduled tribe community. Document Ex.P/8 exhibited by PW/5 has not proved as no witness was examined that the certificate was issued by the competent authority. This certificate has been issued by the Tehsildar whereas the SDO , Revenue is competent authority to issue caste certificate.

8. On the point of tress- pass over and possession of the disputed land, it is worth mention that as per the prosecution the incident has taken place on 9.11.2005 and certified document Ex.P/2 Khasra Panchsala of the Survey No.475 ad-measuring 0.20 was issued on 7.1.2006 after the incident during the enquiry.

9. On the above facts the village Patwari /Chhottelal Uikey (PW/6) states that on the order of Tehsildar Bicchiya he has carried out survey of the agricultural land Survey No. 475, 479 and 477. These lands were of the ownership of the complainant Kalicharan and when he inspected the spot there was no crop and he has submitted his report Ex.P/6 and he has further submitted that as per Ex.P/3 and the map P/2 the area marked by the red the Narayan Gulthu and Sumran was in the possession.

10. This witness Chhotelal Uikey (PW/6) in the cross examination has 5 CRA-2435-2006 admitted he has not brought the order of Tehsildar by which he was ordered to carry out the survey. He has also further admitted that Revenue Inspector is entitled to carry out the demarcation and he himself has carried out the demarcation. In the cross examination, he has also admitted that there is a Nala adjoining to the disputed land and both the parties claimed that the land of the Nala is of their ownership and further admitted that the accused persons were in the possession since long time on the land of the Nala.

11. Thus, this witness has clearly admitted that the disputed land adjoining to the disputed land there was a nala and nala was the Govt. property but both the parties were claiming their possession over the land of nala and this witness has not produced the order of Tehsildar by that he conducted the survey and he has also not produced the order of demarcation.

12. Complainant Kalicharan (PW/5) in his examination in chief has clearly stated that Survey No. of the disputed land is 475 and the area of disputed land is 20 Aare and adjoining to his disputed land in the northern side there is a land of Dhan Singh, in the south Sumran and Gullu (appellant) in the east the Sobhit or in the west the Narayan (accused/appellant). Thus, from the examination in chief, it is clear that the complainant land is surrounded by the field of the appellants. Kailicharan in cross examination has stated that his land was demarcated by the competent revenue authority but he has not filed any document and is unable to disclose the case number on which the order of demarcation was passed by the Tehsildar. In the para 6 this complainant has also admitted that regarding the land which the dispute which there is a dispute the appellants/accused were in the possession for the last more than 12 years and a Panchayat was convened.

6 CRA-2435-2006

13. Pappu Gond (PW/1) the son of complainant Kalicharan(PW/5) in the chief examination has stated that since long the accused persons are in the possession of their land and they are not returning the possession of the land. In Para No. 2 of the cross examination witness has clearly admitted that the appellants were in the possession of the disputed part of the land for more than 30-40 years and his fathers has lodged the complaint for obtaining the possession of the property. The witness Riyaz @ Riyazuddin who was the Sarpanch of the village in the cross examination has admitted that in his presence no demarcation have taken place and has also admitted that there was no dispute on the basis of the caste, there was only a dispute regarding the possession of agricultural land.

1 4 . Usha Bai (PW/2) the daughter of the complainant Kalicharan has stated that in para 4 of the cross examination that the appellant Sumran was having possession over the disputed land for the long period. He is not aware of the boundaries of the disputed land and further clearly stated that if accused

persons have not taken the possession of the disputed land, no FIR would have been lodged. She has further stated that there is no dispute on the basis of caste. It is a dispute of agricultural land. In para 8 of her cross examination this witness has clearly stated that they want to take possession of the disputed land from the accused persons and for that purpose FIR was lodged and and they have not getting the possession of the land that's why they have lodged the FIR.

15. Witness Somwati wife of complainant (PW/4) has stated in the cross examination that the appellants were having the possession on their land from the time of their forefathers and she has further stated that the appellants claimed the disputed land as their own land.

7 CRA-2435-2006

16. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant's land is surrounded by the land of appellant and also by a Nala and the appellants were stating that the they are in the possession of the land of Nala and there is dispute of the demarcation of the land, as no documents of the demarcation has been placed before the record this hence it appears that the parties were in dispute over the certain parts of the land to whom the appellant are claiming to be the part of the their ownership land and the complainant party says that the appellants have tress passed over their land. That's the simple dispute.

17. The document Ex.P/4 is a document in which it has been written by Sumran on 10.7.2002 that on the part of the land in which he has the possession, he is leaving his possession over the disputed land and he will never retake the possession. On the same point one Sobhit has also given a written undertaking that on 14.3.2005, he is leaving his possession over the disputed property but as suggestion by the accused persons, it appears that after that the complainant was claiming that still the appellants are having the possession over his land. Thus, this is a simple dispute of the demarcation of land.

18. It is clear that the appellants were in possession of the disputed land from 30-40 years and they were disputing the possession as both the parties were claiming their ownership on the disputed land. This is a not a case that appellants without any basis were having the wrongful possession over the disputed property. The appellants were found having tress passed over the Nala land and in para 2 of the cross examination Chhotelal Uikey (PW/6) has admitted on the possession of nala land the accused persons has deposited the 8 CRA-2435-2006 fine amount time and again.

19. Regarding the theft it is worth mention that on the date on which the FIR was also it was not the case of the prosecution that the appellant has forcefully harvested the standing crop of the complainant and from the cross examination of the witnesses that the appellant has not tress passed fresh and the appellants were having the possession from long period. On that the crop was recovered from the possession of the Sumran Yadav, no adverse inference can be drawn as the paddy crop was shown by the appellants.

20. On the point of abuse and assault the Pappu Gond (PW/1) has stated that when he along with his mother and sister and younger brother reaping the crop, the Sumran started abusing them and assaulted with two slaps and when he after calling his father went on the field along with him the Nanas Bai assaulted his father.

21. Witness Usha Bai (PW/3) has stated that Sumran and sumran's son has assaulted his brother thus, this witness has improved the fact that Sumran's son also assaulted his brother and Sumran's son was not accused before the court and further stated that accused started abusing his father and stated that Nansa bai assaulted his father by fists. Somwati (PW/4) has stated that all the accused persons have abused the Sumran assaulted his son Pappu and when her husband came along with Pappu and the persons of the village the appellants threatened her husband and in the cross examination by the prosecution she has stated that Nansabai assaulted her husband

22. Kalicharan (PW/5) on the same point, stated that Sumran started abusing his son and when his son came to inform him he reached on the field that Up Sarpanch Riyaz ( PW/2) all accused persons were there and the Sumran also threatened to cut him by axe and started abusing and Nansabai has 9 CRA-2435-2006 assaulted him with fists. Thus, on the point of abuses the incident changed. Same witnesses was that the Sumran has assaulted only to Pappu and some witness of the accused persons have abused the Pappu and the second round of the the incident accused persons have abuses the Kalicharan (PW/5) and threatened to Kalicharan. Santram (PW/8), Pappu (PW/8) has stated that Nansabai has assaulted the Kalicharan.

23. In this from the looking to the whole evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that there was a dispute of boundary and dispute regarding the possession and the crop was shown by the appellant and the complainant and his family members went to reap crop and on that certain verbal quarrel has taken place and it has also come on record that on the demarcation by the Patwari certain time the land was coming in the ownership of the complainant and some time in the ownership of the victim/ accused persons and to solve that dispute the accused Sumran has executed his compromise deed (Ex.P/4) and on the same day one Sobhit Das and other persons has also, as per Ex.P/5 has handed over t h e possession to the complainant party. Complainant never made legally demarcation of the boundaries. After the FIR the panchnama was prepared by the village Patwari and entry in the Ex.P/2 was made and from the prosecution witness itself it is clear that appellants were having the possession over the disputed land for since long period and by demarcation the measurement of the land no definite boundaries were fixed on which part of this dispute has taken place.

24. From the evidence, it is also clear that this incident happened on the dispute over the land and caste was not the basis of the dispute and oral evidence of the wittiness and all the witnesses that were present on the spot has 10 CRA-2435-2006 not supported the fact that Sumran has assaulted the victim Pappu Gond. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged by the police authorities after a delay on 19.1.2006 in between that time by revenue authorities, the panchnama were prepared no sincere effort was done by the revenue or police authorities to clarify the demarcation of the boundaries

25. Hence, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and 294, 323, 379 of the IPC is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. On that the appellants are given benefit of doubt. They are acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and 294, 323, 379 of the IPC . As result the sentenced imposed upon the appellants as mentioned above are quashed. The fine amount if deposited by the appellants be returned to the appellants. Regarding disposal of case property, looking to period and further complications the order of trial court is affirmed.

26. Thus, Appeal is allowed.

27. Let record of court below be sent back with the copy of this order.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) V. JUDGE Akm

AKANKSHA MAURYA 2024.06.11 12:18:13 +05'30'