Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3585 P&H

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049707




                                                          2023:PHHC:049707
CRR-12-2022                                              -1-

 (240) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRR-12-2022
                                                 Date of Decision: 11.04.2023

RAJINDER SINGH
                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                  ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
                             ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the

judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 05.11.2016 passed

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution version is that one application was

moved by the complainant-Rajinder Singh son of Balwant Singh caste Jatt

resident of village Kheri Vir Singh against Balwinder Singh, Dharminder

Singh, Joginder Kaur and Bhupinder Singh. On the basis of the complaint

received, ASI Karamjit Singh along with HC Jasbir Singh and C Davinder

Singh reached the spot to investigate the matter. The complainant-Rajinder

Singh stated that the accused persons had illegally and forcibly taken

possession of the agricultural land in his (complainant's) possession and had

forcibly cultivated the same in the mid night of 02-03 November, 2014. The

complainant had purchased 14 kanals of land in dispute bearing Khatoni no.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049707

2023:PHHC:049707

55/99 Khasra no. 16//16 (4-0), 17 min (2-0), 17//20 min (4- 0), 17//26 min (0-

10) through registered sale deed no. 630 dated 17.06.03. The complainant

prayed that the criminal action be taken against the accused persons for

forcibly and illegally taking the possession of land from him. On the basis of

statement suffered by the complainant, the FIR was registered against the

accused. The site plan was prepared and statement of witnesses were

recorded. After completion of investigation the challan was presented in the

Court.

3. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of the

challan and other documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied

to the accused free of cost as envisaged u/s 207 Cr. P.C.

4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge was

framed against them under Section 447 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Rajinder

Singh as PW1, Himmat Singh Jr. Assistant DTO Office, Fatehgarh Sahib as

PW2, HC Paramjeet Singh as PW3, Gurmukh Singh Nambardar, ASI Ashok

Kumar as PW5, Balbir Kaur from the office of DTO, Mohali as PW6. Sukhjit

Singh Patwari as PW7, Kuldeep Kumar Malhotra as PW8, Gurjeet Singh as

PW9, ASI Karamjeet Singh as PW10 and Kaka Singh as PW11. Thereafter

the APP closed the prosecution evidence vide his separate statement.

6. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C

wherein the entire incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution

evidence against the accused was put to them to which they pleaded

innocence and claimed false implication. The accused stated that they had

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049707

2023:PHHC:049707

never cultivated the land of the complainant to take the possession of the

same and that there was a dispute of inheritance of the land of Prem Singh

who was related to them by blood and the complainant had forged a Will of

Prem Singh in favour of his sons. Mutation of inheritance of Prem Singh was

sanctioned in favour of the father of the accused namely Sewa Singh.

However, the said proceedings were challenged by the complainant and his

sons in the Appellate Court and the said proceedings were still pending. They

further stated that the Jamabandi of the said land was still joint. However, the

accused did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same after

tendering some documents.

7. Based on the evidence led, the accused/respondents came to be

acquitted vide judgment dated 05.11.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib.

8. The petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal which came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.

The aforementioned judgments of acquittal are under challenge

in the present petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence

against the respondents/accused is well-established from the deposition of the

prosecution witnesses. The ownership and exclusive possession of the

petitioner/complainant over the land in question had been proved on record

by way of documentary and ocular evidence. The Courts below had erred by

misreading the testimony of the eye-witness Kaka Singh (PW-11). Similarly,

the testimony of the complainant-PW1 had also been misread. He thus

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049707

2023:PHHC:049707

contends that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 had committed the offence of

criminal trespass and there were sufficient evidence to convict them for the

same.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

11. A perusal of the record would reveal that PW11-Kaka Singh is

stated to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. Apparently, he is a procured

witness. Firstly, he was not aware of the number of the tractor purportedly

used by the accused to cultivate the land. Secondly, he did not make any

attempt to stop the commission of the offence of trespass despite being

present at the spot. Therefore, PW-11 quite apparently has not witnessed the

occurrence as has been sought to be made out.

Further, multiple civil litigations are between the parties

regarding the land in question and therefore the false implication of the

accused cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise, as the land is a joint Khata,

there cannot be a case for trespass.

12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present

petition and the same is dismissed.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

11.04.2023 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:049707

4 of 4