Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalyan Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26749) on 12 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26749]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 297/1995
Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh B/c Rajput, r/o Nimba Tehsil
& District Jaisalmer
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
12/05/2025
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated
21.06.1995 passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge,
Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.56/94, whereby the appellant was
convicted under Section 3(1)(Xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). The appellant challenges the
validity of his conviction primarily under the provisions of the
SC/ST Act.
2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the
appellant and the complainant/victim are neighbors residing in the
same village. They both own agricultural lands situated adjacently.
A long-standing dispute existed between the two regarding the
precise boundary demarcation and the extent of possession over
the agricultural land in question.
[2025:RJ-JD:26749] (2 of 5) [CRLA-297/1995]
2.1. It was the prosecution's case that the victim, belonging to
the Scheduled Caste community, was allegedly dispossessed or
prevented from cultivating his land by the appellant, who
trespassed upon the disputed land and asserted unlawful
possession. The prosecution contended that the act of the
appellant was motivated by the caste identity of the victim and
thus attracted the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act.
2.2. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including PW-1
Chitragiri, PW-2 Kriparam, PW-3 Sagta Ram, PW-5 Ashok Kumar
Gupta and PW-6 Joga Ram other local residents. PW-1 Chitragiri,
the Patwari, testified that the land in question was recorded in the
revenue records under the khatedari rights of the victim.
According to him, the appellant had no legal right, title, or interest
in the said parcel of land. PW-2 Kriparam further stated that prior
to the incident, the appellant had cultivated the land, and
subsequently, the victim attempted to assert his right over the
same, which resulted in a confrontation.
2.3. Notably, no caste-based derogatory words or conduct were
attributed to the appellant by any of the prosecution witnesses.
There is no evidence of humiliation, abuse, or threat issued to the
victim with reference to his caste. The testimonies collectively
establish a land dispute arising from conflicting claims of
ownership and possession.
3. The cardinal question before this Court is whether the
alleged offense of trespass was committed solely on the ground
that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. It is now well-
settled that for an act to fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(v) &
3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, it must be established that the accused
[2025:RJ-JD:26749] (3 of 5) [CRLA-297/1995]
committed the offense against the person belonging to SC/ST
community solely due to such person's caste identity. Mere caste
status of the victim is not sufficient; there must be direct
evidence demonstrating caste-based animus or the atrocious act.
3.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 has clearly held that mere
disputes regarding land ownership or possession, even if one of
the parties belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,
would not automatically bring the matter within the ambit of the
SC/ST Act unless it is shown that the offense was committed
because of caste of the victim.
3.2. In the present case, the evidence on record establishes that
there existed a bona fide and long-standing boundary dispute
between the parties. Both the appellant and the victim had
exercised acts of possession over the disputed land at various
times. No material has been brought on record to show that the
appellant acted with the intention to humiliate, insult, or
intimidate the victim due to his caste. Thus, the essential
ingredients of Section 3(1)(v) or 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act are
not satisfied.
4. Consequently, this Court finds merit in the submission that
the conviction of the appellant under the SC/ST Act cannot be
sustained. The conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act
is accordingly quashed and set aside.
4.1. As regards the offense of criminal trespass, the evidence of
Chitrigiri, the Patwari (PW-1) and other corroborating witnesses
clearly establishes that the appellant unlawfully entered upon the
land recorded in the name of the victim without any lawful
[2025:RJ-JD:26749] (4 of 5) [CRLA-297/1995]
authority. The appellant failed to produce any documentary or oral
evidence in support of his claim of ownership or long-standing
possession. Therefore, the appellant's conviction liable to be
converted under Section 447 IPC. The Court of Appeal is
empowered to convert the conviction into a lesser offence.
4.2. Section 447 IPC provides for imprisonment of up to three
months, or a fine of ₹5,000, or both. Considering the fact that the
incident occurred in the year 1994, and more than 30 years have
elapsed, this Court finds it appropriate to adopt a reformative
approach. The appellant was a young man at the time of the
offense and has already undergone a short period of incarceration.
At present, he is an aged individual, and no subsequent criminal
conduct has been reported, therefore, it would not serve the ends
of justice to re-incarcerate him after such a long passage of time.
Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone. However, he is directed to pay a compensation of
₹5,000 to the victim. The said amount shall be deposited before
the Trial Court within 90 days from the date of this judgment.
Upon such deposit, the Trial Court shall summon the victim and
ensure disbursal of the compensation amount to him.
5. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.06.1995 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.56/94 so far as under Section 3(1)
(xi) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the same is herebye quashed
and set aside instead he is convicted under Section 447 IPC is
concerned, the period already undergone by him would be
sufficient to serve the course of justice, subject to the appellant
[2025:RJ-JD:26749] (5 of 5) [CRLA-297/1995]
depositing ₹5,000 as compensation within 90 days. His bail bonds
before this Court are discharged.
6. Let the record be returned to the Trial Court along with a
copy of this judgment for necessary compliance.
(FARJAND ALI),J
20-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
