Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1115 (RAJ)

Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-12

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 13.01.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar (for short ‘the trial Court’ hereinafter) whereby the trial Court acquitted respondents No.2 to 9 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 447, 382/149, IPC. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Judgment and order impugned and the record of the trial Court. 3. Facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that petitioner Magha Ram filed a report before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner on 25.07.1986, inter alia, alleging therein that he is in possession of land bearing No.12 measuring 20 bigha for last 20 years on the basis of allotment. On 22.07.1986, accused-respondents came in the night and threatened him. It is alleged that certain materials lying were loaded in a tractor which were taken away by the accused-respondents. The case as set up by the complainant-petitioner is that Khasra No.187/22 is in possession of the complainant and Khasra No.188/22 is belonging to accused-respondent Thakar Ram. The complainant did not appear before the trial Court as a witness despite several opportunities to him. The complainant’s wife PW-3 Badu claims to be in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.186/22 which is contrary to the case set up by the complainant. PW-3 Badu in her statement has stated that towards the West, there is a Abadi land, whereas PW-15 Khet Singh, Patwari of the area produced the record and stated that towards the West of the complainant’s land, there is an agricultural land of accused Thakar Ram bearing Khasra No.188/22. 4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the land where occurrence is said to have taken place and shown by the complainant belongs to accused Thakar Ram and he is in possession of that land. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to produce even the Investigating Officer. The complainant and the Investigating Officer are the material witnesses. Noticing these infirmities in the prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to produce even the Investigating Officer. The complainant and the Investigating Officer are the material witnesses. Noticing these infirmities in the prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. On close scrutiny of the record and going through the statements of the various witnesses, I am of the view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondents since two material witnesses have not been produced and the statement of PW-3 runs contrary to the factual foundation made by the complainant. In this view of the matter, there is no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting any interference in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction by a private party. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 6. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.