JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Sole appellant, Braham Raj Pandey has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 3 (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Aurangabad in G.R. Case No. 1047/1993 Trial No. 09/1995 and has been directed to undergo SI for six months as well as also fined Rs. 1000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for one month, has filed the instant appeal. 3. PW-6, Abdul Wahab, Circle Officer of Kutumba filed a written report disclosing therein that 22 decimals of land of Khesra No. 1310 corresponding to Khata No. 64 of village-Dhaniwar having boundary, North-rest part of Khesra No. 1310, South- Road, East Khesra No.1308, West- Land of Shyam Kishore Pandey which has been settled in favour of Beepat Bhuian under Ceiling Act, has been encroached upon by Braham Raj Pandey who has erected one room whereunder one cot has also been kept. In some portion of the land, he has planted banana, brinjal and Rahar and is further forbidding Beepat Bhuian to go over the land. Beepat also got well over it under Yojna No. 104/91-92. An effort was taken by the administration to contact Braham Raj Pandey but his family members regularly disclosed about him to be out of station. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Kutumba P.S. Case No. 73/1993 was registered followed with investigation and after conclusion of the same, charge-sheet was submitted whereupon the instant trial commenced, concluded in a manner subject matter of instant appeal. 5. The defence as pleaded during course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as by way of cross-examining PWs is of complete denial of occurrence. Furthermore, it has been submitted that prosecution party though have got some collusive paper transaction in their favour, however, never came over the land under dispute and the appellant/accused happened to be rightful owner as well as having in possession of the land under dispute. Furthermore, it has been submitted that prosecution party though have got some collusive paper transaction in their favour, however, never came over the land under dispute and the appellant/accused happened to be rightful owner as well as having in possession of the land under dispute. Also examined two witnesses i.e., DW-1, Daroga Pandey and DW-2, Sujit Kumar as well as had also exhibited Ext-A, sale deed dated 26.09.1969, Ext-B registered exchange deed, Ext-C, rent receipt, Ext-D and D/1, receipt issued by Electricity department on account of deposit of money for electric line, Ext-E, estimate paper of electricity department, Ext-F, certified copy applied for obtaining relevant information regarding Plot No. 1310 which suggests that original Khatian is missing. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that altogether nine PWs have been examined on behalf of prosecution out of whom PW-1 is Lalan Ram @ Lalan Bhuiyan, PW-2 is Baburam, PW-3 is Beepat Bhuiyan (settlee of the land), PW-4 is Jugesh Ram, PW-5 is Kailash Prasad, PW-6 is Abdul Wahab (informant), PW-7 is Janmejay Sao, PW-8 is Baleshwar Prasad and PW-9 is Nandlal Singh, as well as had also exhibited Ext-1, Formal FIR, Ext-2, written report, Ext-3, case diary, Ext-4, Parwana, Ext-5, rend receipt, Ext-6 copy of yojna no. 104/91-92. 7. From Ext-2, written report, Ext-4, Parcha as well as from ocular evidence including that of PW-6, informant, it is evident that the State had settled some portion of Khesra No. 1310 in favour of PW-3. From the evidence of PW-6 (informant), it is evident that as the persons holding Parcha have not got possession over the land, therefore, he had deputed Sitaram Dubey (Ameen) along with Karamchari, however, they could not succeed and on account thereof, he got the matter inquired into and finding the allegation true, filed written report. During cross-examination in para-2 he had stated that he had got no knowledge regarding the land under dispute save and except that land had been recorded under Khatian as Gairmazarua Malik land. From the evidence of PW-7, Janmejay Sao, C.I. it transpires that he was deputed by the C.O. to provide possession to the settlee over the respective area of land. To facilitate the same he had gone to village-Biraj Bigha where he tried to facilitate the possession of Beepat Bhuian over the land but could not succeed as the accused persons protested. Thereafter, he informed the C.O. 8. To facilitate the same he had gone to village-Biraj Bigha where he tried to facilitate the possession of Beepat Bhuian over the land but could not succeed as the accused persons protested. Thereafter, he informed the C.O. 8. Thus, from the evidence of PWs-6 and 7 it is abundantly clear that though 22 decimals of Survey Plot No. 1310 had been settled in favour of Beepat Bhuian who never came in possession of that land. 9. So far status of ocular evidence is concerned, PW-1 happens to be grand-son of Beepat Bhuian had not stated that they came over the land during his examination-in-chief and the same happened to be the status of PW-2 who during cross-examination at para-4 had stated that he is unable to say the area of Survey Plot No. 1310 but it happened to be a big chunk of land. Road also passes through it. 10. PW-3 Beepat Bhuian himself had stated in the examination-in-chief that whenever he went to possess the land, he became frustrated at the hands of accused persons. In para-6, he had stated that the accused person, Braham Raj Pandey was cultivating the land since before which has been allotted to him. 11. PW-4 is the son of Beepat Bhuian who in his examination-in-chief alone had controverted the area of settlement which, as per Ext-1 as well as other witnesses, happens to be 22 decimals while according to this PW-4, it happens to be 5 decimals. In para-4, he had stated that the Government machinery came and gave the possession. Therefore, presence of appellant over the land under dispute happens to be admission at the end of prosecution. Neither PW-6, nor PW-7 had stated and in likewise manner Beepat Bhuian that before settlement of the land, accused was ever noticed or he had participated during course of settlement. 12. It is also apparent that from the judgment impugned that propriety of I.O. to be competent to investigate the case in terms of Rule 7 was raised, though negativated as he was not possessing rank of Dy. S.P. 13. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned trial court had taken into consideration the mandate of Subsection (iv) (v) of Section 3 of the Act and further dealt with the aforesaid eventuality under para-10 and 11 of the judgment, however, failed to construe the exact wording of the Section and its requirement. S.P. 13. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned trial court had taken into consideration the mandate of Subsection (iv) (v) of Section 3 of the Act and further dealt with the aforesaid eventuality under para-10 and 11 of the judgment, however, failed to construe the exact wording of the Section and its requirement. Subsection (iv) speaks regarding wrongful occupancy as well as cultivation of land owned by or allotted to, notified by any competent authority in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or gets the land allotted to him transferred, is evident to be suffering from some sort of controversy in the background of evidence as referred above wherein there happens to be admission on the part of the settlee themselves that land was coming under possession of appellant/accused before settlement of the land in their favour. Therefore, presence of appellant since before the occurrence over the land under dispute is an admitted one. Furthermore, PW-2 ha admitted big chunk of plot no. 1310, out of which only 22 decimal has been settled in favour of PW-3. Though the Parcha speaks the boundary but after going through the same it is evident that it happens to be of plot and not of 22 Decimal. Furthermore, the ocular evidence also lacks the same. Prosecution also failed to specify whether total area of plot No. 1310 has been settled to different persons who have got possession or out of total area, only 22 decimal has been allotted to PW-3 and on remaining area, appellant/accused is in the possession. Therefore, sub-section (iv) is not found applicable on account of lapses on the part of prosecution in locating the area by specific boundary. In likewise manner, Subsection (v) is also not attracted as there happens to be admission of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, C.O. (PW-6), C.I. (PW-7) as well as the settlee himself that they never came in possession of the land and so there was no question of dispossession. 14. Settlement of land as disclosed in the written report happens to be under Ceiling Act. However, its detail has not been disclosed at least to the extent whether appellant was pleaded during course thereof. Whether he was land holder or any way concerned. Whether the plot was declared surplus under final publication. 14. Settlement of land as disclosed in the written report happens to be under Ceiling Act. However, its detail has not been disclosed at least to the extent whether appellant was pleaded during course thereof. Whether he was land holder or any way concerned. Whether the plot was declared surplus under final publication. That means to say, the prosecution case is found shrouded with uncertainty as well as vagueness and on account thereof, the judgment of conviction and sentence could not survive. 15. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is set aside. Appeal is allowed. 16. Since appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.