JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has preferred instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 25.7.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh, whereby, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and passed sentence for three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Sint. Mangi Bai who belongs to Scheduled Caste community in the Court of Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 17.2.1992 in which it is alleged by her that appellant and his son Ashraf committed theft of standing crop of her agricultural field, therefore, action may be. taken against them. The concerned Magistrate sent the said complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Rathanjna, Village Gadola, District Chittorgarh. Upon receiving the said complaint, the Police Station Rathanjna, District Chittorgarh registered a case for offence under Sections 379, 4471.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act of 1989') against appellant and his son and commenced the investigation. 3. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh from where case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh for trial. The trial Court commenced the trial and recorded statements of 10 prosecution witnesses, thereafter the statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and in defence, two witnesses DW-1 Allah Rakha, DW-2 Balu were produced before the Court by the accused-appellant. 4. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 25.7.1996 whereby the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989. 5. 4. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 25.7.1996 whereby the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989. 5. While assailing the validity of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that gross error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 because bare perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant (Ex.P-7) reveals that no offence under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. or 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 is made out. The complainant herself admitted in the complaint that land in question from where the allegation of theft of standing crops is levelled by her against the appellant, is belonging to the accused-appellant himself but not only the Investigating Officer but the trial Court completely ignored the said fact and gave finding that appellant is guilty of committing offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 for which there is no allegation. While inviting attention towards the complaint Ex.P-7 and statement of complainant Mangi Bai, PW-1, it is vehemently argued that in both the documents, there is no disclosure where the land of complainant is situated and what is the Khasra number of her land upon which she is in possession. The bald allegations are pleaded against the appellant without any evidence but while pleaded against deciding the case, the trial Court completely overlooked the said fact and illegally convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no documentary evidence produced on recorded by the complainant to prove that the land in question belongs to her or she is in possession. The only statement of PW-9 Shiv Shankar had been recorded in the trial who was holding the post of Patwari in the year 1992. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no documentary evidence produced on recorded by the complainant to prove that the land in question belongs to her or she is in possession. The only statement of PW-9 Shiv Shankar had been recorded in the trial who was holding the post of Patwari in the year 1992. The said witness PW-9 deposed in his statement that complainant's land is situated in Khasra No. 172 but in the statement of complainant so also in the complaint filed by her, there is no disclosure that her land is situated in Khasra No. 172, therefore, it is argued that the whole prosecution story is based upon bald and concocted allegations of the complainant. The prosecution has completely failed to establish that any offence is committed by the appellant in the land of complainant. More so, in the complaint itself, it is admitted by the complainant that the land in question is belonging to the accused-appellant, therefore, finding given by the trial Court to held appellant guilty is totally erroneous baseless and far from truth. 7. The testimony of other witnesses PW-2 Gordhan, PW-3 Pabudan are also required to be discredited for the simple reason that neither the Khasra number is disclosed by the complainant in the complaint nor in her statement before the Court. More so, she admits in the complaint that land in question is belonging to the appellant. Therefore, the judgment impugned which is based on perverse finding may be quashed and appellant may be acquitted from the charges. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant for quashing the judgment impugned on the ground that as per the evidence led by the prosecution, it is completely established that theft of standing crops was committed by the accused-appellant from that land in which complainant was in possession who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the appellant has rightly been held guilty of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 so also for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. 9. According to Public Prosecutor, there is ample evidence on record upon which, the trial Court has relied upon and gave finding, therefore, all the grounds taken by the appellant deserves to be rejected and the judgment rendered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld. 10. According to Public Prosecutor, there is ample evidence on record upon which, the trial Court has relied upon and gave finding, therefore, all the grounds taken by the appellant deserves to be rejected and the judgment rendered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. First of All, I have perused the complaint Ex.P-7 filed by the complainant Mangi Bai in the Court 'of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh which reads as under: " lsok esa] U;k;ky; ,0,e0ts0,e0 lkgc] izrkix<+ ( jktLFkku ) Jherh ekaxh ckbZ firk Hksjkth cykbZ fuoklh xknksyk Fkkuk jBktuk ---- vfHk;ksxh cuke 1- Jh gk:u firk [kkuw eqlyeku fuoklh xknksyk 2- Jh v'kjQ firk gk:u eqlyeku fuoklh xknksyk ------ vfHk;qDr vijk/k/kkjk 379] 447 rk0fg0 ,oa/kkjk 3 ,V~ksflVh ,DV ekU;oj egksn; th] vfHk;ksx i= vfHk;ksxk fuEufyf[kr gS%& 1- ;g fd vfHkqDr ds [kkrs dCts ,oa HkqxrHkksx dh vkjkth ukeh xks;jkokyk okd xzke xknksyk esa fLFkfr gSaA " 11. In Para No.1 of the complaint, the complainant herself pleaded that land in question is in possession of accused appellant which is situated in the village Gadola, meaning thereby, if the land in question was in possession of the accused-appellant as per complaint itself, then there was no question of saying that appellant has committed an offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 because to prove the allegation of above crime, it was mandatory for the complainant or the prosecution to establish that land in question is belonging to the complainant and she was in possession. 12. In the statement of PW-1 Mangi Bai also, it is nowhere said by her that land is situated in Khasra No. 172 nor is disclosed that how much land is belonging to her. More so, the basic document upon which investigation was commenced, which is complaint admittedly is Para No. 1 it is mentioned that land in question is belonging to accused himself, therefore, for said reason finding given by the trial Court suffers from perversity and it is so, then it cannot be said that any offence is committed by the appellant 13. I have perused the statement of other witnesses also and perused document Exh.D-4/A, which is an application filed by Mangi Bai before the Deputy Collector, Pratapgarh in which it is payed by her that one Allah Rakha has made encroachment upon her land which is situated in Khasra No. 172. In view of the above. I am of the. firm opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that complainant was in possession of land where offence is committed by the appellant. The Investigating Officer so also the trial Court has completely ignored the basic important fact that there is no evidence on record to prove the possession of complainant upon the land in question and the allegation of committing offence of encroachment of theft by the appellant of the land belonging to the complainant. Therefore, in my opinion, there is complete perversity and illegality in the finding for convicting accused for offence under Section 447 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(v) of Act of 1989 in the criminal trial the prosecution is required to prove and establish that there is evidence to punish the accused. Here in this case, right from the date when complaint was filed, the complainant herself admitted in Para No.1 of the complaint that land in question is belonging to accused-appellant and in the statement recorded by the trial Court it is nowhere said by the PW-1 Mangi Bai that where her land is situated, there'0re, it is abundantly clear from the material evidence on record that prosecution has failed to prove case against the appellant.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25.7.1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant bail his bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******