Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1220 (RAJ)

Bagga Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-08-26

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2001 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 55/99 whereby the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 447 IPC and instead of sentencing him at once with imprisonment, he was admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and under Section 5 of the Act, he was directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant and further directed to hand over the possession of plot No. 263 and 264 to complainant Chetan Ram. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and order so also the the record of the trial court. 3. PW-1 Chetan Ram field a complaint before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 504 IPC and under Section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act'). The Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.RC. for investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for the offence under Sections 447, 504 IPC and under Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. By order dated 10.4.2001, the trial court framed charge against the appellant that prior to six months (sic), on 20.2.1999 he had trespassed the plots No. 263 and 264 belonging to complainant Chetan Ram village Kharia and cultivated the land and thereby he committed the offence of tresspass. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant stated that appellant has trespassed the plots bearing No. 263 and 264 which were alleged to have been allotted to the complainant. Complainant, Chetan Ram (PW-1) stated before the court that two plots namely 273 and 274 were allotted to his father Lekhu Ram which were in his father's possession and after the death of his father, he continuously possesses the said plots. It is stated that appellant caused damage to the structure on the plot by trespassing upon the plot and thereby cultivated the land. It is stated that appellant caused damage to the structure on the plot by trespassing upon the plot and thereby cultivated the land. It was also stated that complainant was abused by his caste (name). 4. PW-2 Madanlal has made a similar statement. However, he did not mention the plot numbers. PW-3 Manglaram also made a similar statement but he did not mention the plot numbers. PW-4 Arjun stated that Plots No. 73, 74 (sic) belong to his maternal uncle. PW-1 Chetan Ram. He had been residing at his maternal uncle's house for the last 20 years. He stated that plots were in possession of the complainant. The appellant threatened PW-1 Chetan Ram to remove bushes lying on the plots. Thereafter, the appellant forcibly took possession of those plots. The trial court on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that appellant committed trespass (on) the plots No. 263 and 264 situated in village Kharia. 5. On close scrutiny of statements of prosecution witnesses more particularly PW-1 Chetan Ram and PW-4 Arjun, it is more than clear that prosecution witnesses claim that plots No. 273 and 274 were allotted to the father of PW-1 Chetan Ram and complainant claims to be in possession thereof by virtue of allotment in favour of his father. In whole of the case, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that plots No. 263 and 274 were in possession of complainant and the appellant trespassed those plots. It appears that allotment of plots in favour of complainant's father is in respect of plots No. 273 and 274, whereas, finding arrived at by the trial court is with regard to plots No. 263 and 264 and thus charge was framed regarding trespass upon plots No. 263 and 264. Neither, there was charge against the appellant in respect of plots No. 263 and 264 nor there is any evidence on record to show that appellant committed trespass the plots No. 263 and 264. 6. Neither, there was charge against the appellant in respect of plots No. 263 and 264 nor there is any evidence on record to show that appellant committed trespass the plots No. 263 and 264. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court holding the appellant guilty for the offence of trespass on plots No. 263 and 264 cannot sustain as also direction of the trial court to the appellant to pay compensation and to hand over possession of the plots No. 263 and 264 to the complainant, PW-1 Chetan Ram is also erroneous and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 10.4.2001 passed by the trial court in criminal case No. 55/99 is hereby set aside.Appeal allowed. *******