Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1710 (RAJ)

Shri Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-10-16

O.P.BISHNOI

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6.6.1984 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Alwar. 2. According to the prosecution story. RW. 1 Manphool Gujar r/o village Dhokri on 10.9.1982 at 10.45 AM lodged the first information report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Sadar Alwar. According to the FIR, the complainant was the owner of agricultural field bearing Khasra No. 189 and on that day, at about 7-8 AM accused Siriya Alias Shriram started to cultivate in the said field of the complainant. It is not in dispute that the accused-persons are the owners of the adjoining field bearing Khasra No. 184 and there was previous dispute between the parties and each complained that the other side has encroached upon their field. When the complainant Manphool raised objection, it is alleged that accused-persons attacked and caused injuries to Shriram, Manphool, Ramswaroop, Patram and Hari. A case under Section 147, 148, 149,447 and 323, IPC was registered and challan was filed under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC. 3. Roopa was charged under Section 148, 447, 324, 307 and 307/149, IPC and rest nine accused-persons were charged under Section 147, 323, 447, 307, and 307/149, IPC. 4. It is not in dispute that both the sides received injuries and earlier FIR No. 161/82 (Ex. D/13) was lodged by accused Dula against PW 1 Manphool, PW 2 Patriya alias Patram, PW 4 Sheesh Ram, PW 5 Heera, PW 6 Ramswaroop, Prabhu, Hanuman, Dayala, Vishambhar and Ram Kishore. On that FIR, a case under Section 147, 148, 447 and 323, IPC was registered. It is not in dispute that from the accused side, the accused Dula, Ram Kumar, Kanhaiya, Shriram, Sedu and Gangu received injuries for which injury reports from Ex.D/7 to Ex.D/12 have been tendered in evidence. 5. In the instant case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and, DW. 1 Birbal and DW 2 Prabhu were examined in defence and both have deposed to the effect that the accused Shriram alias Siriya was cultivating his own land and the accused side were the aggressors and injuries were caused to the accused-persons named above. 6. Learned trial court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 6.6.84 by which the accused-persons Sedu and Dula were found guilty under Section 325, 147, 447 and 323/147, IPC. 6. Learned trial court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 6.6.84 by which the accused-persons Sedu and Dula were found guilty under Section 325, 147, 447 and 323/147, IPC. Accused Roopa was found guilty under Section 447, 148 and 324, IPC. Isharlal s/o Siriya was found guilty under Section 147, 447, 325 and 323/149, IPC. Rest were found guilty under Section 147, 447 and 323, IPC. 7. Under Section 325, IPC., accused Sedu and Dula were awarded 4 years' R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days R.l. For the offences under Section 147, 447, 323/149, IPC they were awarded three months S.i. for each offence. Roopa was awarded 2 years' R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo 15 days R.l. for the offence under Section 324, IPC. Under Section 447 and 148, IPC, he was awarded 3 months S.i. for each offence. Accused Ishar was awarded 2 years' R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days R.l. for the offence under Section 325, IPC. For the offences under Section 147, 447 and 323/149, IPC, he was awarded 3 months' S.I. for each offence. Rest of the accused-persons who were found guilty under Section 147, 447 and 323/149, IPC were awarded 3 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days' S.I. for each offence. The convicted accused-appellants have come in appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that there was no evidence to convict the accused-persons for the offence under Section 447. IPC, in view of the testimony of 'Patwari' PW 3 Madan Gopal. From the testimony of PW 3 Madan Gopal, it is evident that the accused-persons acted in self-defence and the earlier FIR was lodged by accused Dula and case was registered under Section 447 and other offences against the complainant side. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the complainant side caused injuries to six accused-persons which fact stands proved by injury report Ex. D/7 to Ex. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the complainant side caused injuries to six accused-persons which fact stands proved by injury report Ex. D/7 to Ex. D/12 whereas only five persons from the complainant side received injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court.It is thus clear that the incident took place in which both the sides received injuries and cross cases were registered. The earlier FIR was lodged by the accused Dula. About one hour thereafter, the FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by complainant Manphool. 10. Both the cases were registered under Section 447, IPC., apart from other offences. It was thus clear that there was a dispute about the boundary of the fields which were adjoining and which were owned by two opposing sides. In order to find out as to which side was the aggressor and which side was encroaching the other sides land, the testimony of 'Patwari' PW 3 Madan Gopal becomes very significant. 11. For the offence under Section 447, IPC the prosecution relied upon the testimony of 'Patwari' RW.3 Madan Gopal whose statement Ex.D/2 was recorded under Section 161, Cr.RC. Ex.D/2 is to the effect that the Patwari measured the fields and found that a part of Khasra No. 189 was encroached upon by the accused-persons. However, when PW 3 Madan Gopal entered the witness box, he did not support the above contention. He has not supported the prosecution version that there was any encroachment by the accused-persons. He has admitted on oath that the field bearing Khasra No. 184 was never measured by him. He is not a hostile witness. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a mention of encroachment in the field bearing Khasra No. 189 in Ex.D/2 is factually wrong. This admission by the 'Patwari' knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case. Needless to say that the learned trial court has lost sight of this fact and has gone to the extent of convicting the accused-persons of the said offences including the offence under Section 447, IPC. After the testimony of Patwari PW 3 Madan Gopal, no conviction could have been based under Section 447, IPC. It negatives the prosecution contention to the effect that a part of the land belonging to complainant side was encroached upon. After the testimony of Patwari PW 3 Madan Gopal, no conviction could have been based under Section 447, IPC. It negatives the prosecution contention to the effect that a part of the land belonging to complainant side was encroached upon. In view of this it comes out that accused Shriram was cultivating his own land and complainant side stopped him and the incident took place in which as many as six accused-persons were injured. 12. In view of the above discussion, it comes out that the act of the accused-persons in causing injuries to five persons of the complainant side was in self-defence and was completely justified. 13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 6.6.84 is set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of all the offences.Appeal allowed. *******