Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1441 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-21

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal revision petition, complainant Ram Chandra is challenging judgment dated 28.11.2008 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, whereby, the said trial Court acquitted non-petitioners from the charge levelled against them for committing offence under Section 447, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(5), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has completely ignored the testimony of complainant P.W.-1 Ram Chandra, P.W.-2 Chhitarmal, P.W.-4 Prabhu Ram and P.W.-5 Srichand who gave their categorical statements that the complainant party was in possession of the land in dispute and, on the date of the incident, all the respondents trespassed in the khatedari land of the complainant party with a view to grabbing the land but, upon objecting, they opposed them and used the language deriding their caste as "Neech" and "Kamin", therefore, by words they insulted and humiliated the complainant in public. Further, they ousted the complainant party from their agricultural land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was ample evidence on record adduced by the prosecution for committing offence under Section 447, I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(5), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but the learned trial Court completely ignored the said evidence and merely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures acquitted all the non-petitioners, therefore, the judgment impugned may be set aside and matter may be remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing and deciding the matter after due application of mind towards the evidence recorded in the trial. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, counsel for the respondents, I have perused the judgment impugned as well as statements of the prosecution witnesses. 5. The learned trial Court gave finding in para 22 of the judgment that in the statements of complainant P.W.-1 Ram Chandra and eye-witness P.W.-2 Chhitarmal, it is specifically stated in cross-examination of Chhitarmal that accused party was not present at the place of the occurrence. Further, site-plan Ex.-P/2 also speaks that there is specific mention with regard to the fact that there was no sign at the place of the occurrence with regard to dispossession of the complainant party. Further, site-plan Ex.-P/2 also speaks that there is specific mention with regard to the fact that there was no sign at the place of the occurrence with regard to dispossession of the complainant party. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the statements of P.W.-1 Ram Chandra (complainant) and eye-witness P.W.- 2 Chhitarmal came to the conclusion that there is material contradiction in the statements of both the witnesses. The trial Court further observed that as per oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused party committed any trespass upon the land situated in Khasra No.556, 1208/556 on 28.01.2006. 6. In my opinion, learned trial Court assessed the evidentiary value of the material coming on record and gave specific finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, acquitted the non-petitioners from the alleged offence. Hence, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2008. The judgment is based upon sound appreciation of evidence with grounds. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******