Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 50 (MP)

Laxman Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2010-01-13

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15/12/2008, passed by the Special Judge (SC and ST Act) Morena (M.P.) in Special Case No. 526/2000, whereby held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as the SC and ST Act for brevity] and sentenced each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default ordered to suffer imprisonment for one month. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are, complainant Asharam had lodged First Information Report at police Station concerned with regard to forcible encroachment by the appellants/accused persons on his land situated at village Bilpur. It is submitted that this land had been allotted to him by the Revenue Authorities on lease. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the case had been registered under section 3 (1) (v) of the SC and ST Act. After due investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. ( 3. ) The appellants abjured their guilt and their defence is of false implication. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence by the impugned judgment held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (v) of the SC and ST Act and sentenced them as stated herein-above aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 4. ) Having heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State and perused the record. ( 5. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the concerning land had been allotted in favour of the complainant by some competent revenue authorities. No such Patta or lease had been produced and proved by the prosecution. Similarly, the prosecution had not proved the caste certificate of the complainant, on which basis this can be found proved that the complainant belonges to Scheduled Castes Community. No such Patta or lease had been produced and proved by the prosecution. Similarly, the prosecution had not proved the caste certificate of the complainant, on which basis this can be found proved that the complainant belonges to Scheduled Castes Community. No Khasra entry is also produced on which basis the peaceful possession of the complainant can be found proved on the date of incident and in such circumstances, the learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, hence, prayed for setting aside the impunged judgment passed by learned trial Court. ( 6. ) Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7. ) To bring home the charge as levelled against the appellants the prosecution has examined complainant Asharam (PW. 1) who has stated that the disputed land has been alloted to him by Revenue Authorities and he was in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land. On the date of incident, the appellants came there and started abusing him and also tried to cut mustard crop from the field for which he reported the matter to the police. In cross-examination, he has not produced any Patta granted to him by the Revenue Authorities. No Khasra entry is also produced on which basis his peaceful possession on the disputed land can be found proved. Therefore, if the available documentary evidence is not produced by the prosecution then certainly an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution that if the alleged documentary evidence was produced then it would not have supported the porsecution story and only on the basis of oral statement of complainant Asharam (PW 11) and Kammodilal (PW 2) the concerning charge for the alleged trespass by the appellants on the disputed land cannot be found proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 8. ) Resultantly the appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge under section 3 (1) (v) of the SC and ST Act. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged forthwith.