Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 503 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Sahai Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-04

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this criminal revision is to the judgment dated 23rd September, 2004 rendered by the Special Judge SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, whereby the accused non petitioners no. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 504, 323, 427, 447 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (iv) and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (here-in-after to be referred to in short as "Act"). 2. Necessary facts giving rise to this criminal revision, in nut shell, are thus: "That the complainant Bhagwan Sahai purchased ⅛th share of the land of its owner Abdul Samad from his Power of Attorney holder through an agreement to sell. It is stated that on 17.2.2000, when they entered into an agreement to sell, he paid Rs. 50,000/- advance to him and took the possession of the said land. He raised a boundary wall on this land to the height of 3 ft. It is alleged that on 28th July, 2002 when he reached at his land, he found Kayyum Haji, Abdul Gani, Abdul Kareeb, Shahid and three or four more persons there, who armed with deadly weapons viz. Lathi, Danda, Fawdi and iron rods, were committing criminal trespass. It is further alleged that these persons endeavoured to damage the boundary wall by picking up the stones, damaged water tank and other things. The complaint of the complainant Bhagwan Sahai reached police station Dausa en-route the Home Minister of the State of Rajasthan, whereupon the case was registered and the investigation commenced. Police, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet in the court and the court on completion of trial, acquitted the accused non petitioner no. 2 to 4 of the alleged charges as indicated here-in-above." 3. Heard learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist, learned counsel for the non petitioners no. 2 to 4 and the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. Having considered the submissions and carefully scanned the statement of 16 prosecution witnesses, it is noticed that PW 2 Abdul Khaleel, PW-3 Kamlesh Kuamr Sharma, PW-7 Abdul Salam, PW-8 Mohd. Afsar, PW-11 Abdul Kadir, PW-12 Mohammd Imran and PW-14 Prahald have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 5. 4. Having considered the submissions and carefully scanned the statement of 16 prosecution witnesses, it is noticed that PW 2 Abdul Khaleel, PW-3 Kamlesh Kuamr Sharma, PW-7 Abdul Salam, PW-8 Mohd. Afsar, PW-11 Abdul Kadir, PW-12 Mohammd Imran and PW-14 Prahald have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 5. The complainant PW-1 Bhagwan Sahai has albeit supported the contents of the complaint and deposed that the accused persons namely Kayyum Haji and his sons assaulted upon him, called him with bad names, insulted by calling him to be thief and endeavoured to commit criminal trespass with an intention to take possession of the disputed land, but neither any medical report has been produced to support the injuries sustained by him, if any, nor any other independent witness has supported his statements. It is also true that the police, after completion of investigation, did not find sufficient evidence to file the challan and finally gave Final Report therein un-occurred. The learned trial court analyzed the entire prosecution evidence in detail and observed that the sale of the land was not proved. The learned trial court further observed that since the disputed land was situated at a very prime location at Dausa juxtaposed to Jaipur and Agra National Highway, its value increased and with an intention to grab the land, the complainant concocted the story and somehow maneuvered to get the case registered with Police Station, Dausa. Neither there is any evidence on record, which could evince that the accused persons insulted the complainant, which could breach the peace nor any remnants of the damaged property were recovered, which could suggest that the accused persons committed mischief by damaging his property. There being not even a shred of evidence, the learned trial court having appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective rightly arrived at just conclusion that no offence was proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, with which I fully concur. It is also emerged from the prosecution evidence that the complainant did not produce that Power of Attorney also in the court, on the basis of which he is said to have purchased the disputed land. There is no entry of the name of that Power of Attorney holder in the revenue record also. It is also emerged from the prosecution evidence that the complainant did not produce that Power of Attorney also in the court, on the basis of which he is said to have purchased the disputed land. There is no entry of the name of that Power of Attorney holder in the revenue record also. It is also emerged that the complainant Bhagwan Sahai under the garb of agreement to sell wanted to take the land in his possession, but the accused persons did not permit him to do so. After detailed analysis of the prosecution evidence and its appreciation, the learned trial court arrived at conclusion that the whole complaint was totally concocted and no incident as being depicted by the complainant, ever occurred. The impugned judgment is found to be perfectly just and proper, based on sound reasoning. It suffers from no infirmity and I am in full unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial court and the impugned judgment warrants no intervention. 6. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision being bereft of merits stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******