JUDGMENT : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 2.7.1992 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases Kota in case no. 321/1991, whereby accused appellant Satya Narayn and another Manna Lal were convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (v), Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989(hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1989) and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The trail court acquitted Ram Kanwari Bai for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) Act of 1989 and Section 427 IPC as well as Section 447 IPC read with Section 3 (1)(v) of the Act of 1989. By the same judgment appellant Manna Lal and Satya Narayn were also acquitted from the charge of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 427 IPC. During the course of hearing of appeal, Manna lal died and his appeal was dismissed as abated vide order dated 10.8.2015. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that complainant Gokul son of Narayn Meghwal resident of Amarpura submitted a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. on 17.9.1990 before Special Judicial Magistrate Kota Camp Ramganj Mandi, alleging interalia that he is by caste Chamar and Member of Scheduled Castes Community, a lease deed No.51, dated 13.01.1990 was issued by Gram Panchayat Kudayala whereby he was allotted a residential plot 25 feet x 30 feet= 750 Sq. Ft. at Village Amarpura, and was handed over the possession. On 19.05.1990, when he started construction of a house, Accused Manna lal, Satya Narayn and Ram Kanwari Bai came on the plot at about 8-9 p.m. and they started throwing away the construction material and filled up the foundation two and a half ft. Deep, dug by complainant. They told him, Chamaria do whatever you can, we will not allow a house constructed on this plot and if you construct, we will kill and expell you from the village. Complainant reported the matter to Police Station Ramganjmandi on 20.5.1990 SHO Ramganjmandi mediated and a compromise was arrived in writing that accused will leave their possession within 15 days and signed in presence of police officer. Complainant reported the matter to Police Station Ramganjmandi on 20.5.1990 SHO Ramganjmandi mediated and a compromise was arrived in writing that accused will leave their possession within 15 days and signed in presence of police officer. On 15.7.1990 at about 8-9 A.M., when complainant started drawing lines by lime powder for digging foundation of the house, the three accused came out from their house, holding sticks, to beat the complainant. They came on the plot and forcefully evicted the complainant from it. Witnesses Bala Ram,Udailal, Gopal, Mangilal Dhakad,etc had seen the occurrence. The complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for investigation to the SHO Ramganjmandi. SHO Ramganjmandi registered FIR No. 94/90. During investigation, recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses, inspected the site, prepared memo, collected copy of lease deed by which the plot, in question, was allotted to complainant, also collected the written compromise and arrested Manna lal, Satya Narayn and Ram Kanwari. Then, after completing the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against all the three accused before Special Judicial Magistrate Kota Camp at Ramganjmandi, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases kota. All the three accused were charged of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act 1989, Section 427 IPC and Section 447 read with Section 3(1) (v) of Act 1989. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined total 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. While refuting the evidence, accused stated that they are in possession of the plot since 10-15 years. To purchase the plot in question, they had applied before the Panchayat. It was never in possession of Gokul and they did not quarrel with the complainant. 3. No oral evidence was adduced in defence. However, 17 documents were exhibited. After hearing arguments of both the sides, learned trial court vide judgment dated 2.7.1992 acquitted Ram kanwari and convicted and sentenced Manna lal and Satya Narayn, as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is great delay in lodging the First Information Report. This demolishes the case of the prosecution and it shows that it is totally a false and concocted case. 5. Learned counsel submit that trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of Gokul (PW-1) and Bala Ram(PW-8). 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is great delay in lodging the First Information Report. This demolishes the case of the prosecution and it shows that it is totally a false and concocted case. 5. Learned counsel submit that trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of Gokul (PW-1) and Bala Ram(PW-8). A bare perusal of the statements of both these witnesses, reveal that they are full of many improvements, contradictions and material omissions and convictions based on such statements, cannot be sustained. Statement of Francis (PW-2) made before trail court also reveal many improvements in his earlier statement recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. Thus, he is also not convincing witness. 6. The learned counsel further argued that the trial court erred in convicting the accused appellant after taking corroboration from the statements of Govind (PW-5) and Udailal (PW-6), hostile witnesses. 7. It has not been established that the accused appellant dispossessed the complainant from the land only because he is a member of Scheduled Caste Community. 8. The trial court has not properly considered the documents produced in defence which shows that complainant never came in possession of the plot in dispute. The alleged compromise (Ex.P-3) shows that Gokul was not in possession of the land on the date of incident. It is noteworthy that in this document, a promise by appellant Manna Lal was made that he would take away his masonary stones within fifteen days from this plot. It is clear that possession was with appellant accused and there is no material on record to show that possession was ever handed over to the complainant. Thus offence against the appellant of criminal trespass is also not proved. 9. On the contrary, public prosecutor submits that with the help of cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence, the prosecution has proved its case. Complainant Gokul was allotted the plot, and was handed over the possession. This fact is proved from the evidence rendered by Francis (PW-2), Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat. On the other hand, appellant has nowhere stated that the plot in dispute belongs to him. Complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes Community and it has been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution that appellant had unlawfully evicted the complainant and tried to take possession of the disputed plot. This act of the appellant is encroachment/criminal trespass. 10. On the other hand, appellant has nowhere stated that the plot in dispute belongs to him. Complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes Community and it has been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution that appellant had unlawfully evicted the complainant and tried to take possession of the disputed plot. This act of the appellant is encroachment/criminal trespass. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused all the material available on record. 11. Gokul (PW-1) has stated that his land was lying vacant, allotted by Panchayat for constructing a house. He has the Patta, Exhibit P-1. Francis (PW-2), then Sarpanch, has stated that as a Sarpanch, he issued a lease deed of the land for constructing a house to Gokul (PW-1). After allotment, possession was handed over to him and permission to construct a house was also given. His signatures 'A to B' are on Ex.P-1. This land is in front of house of Manna Lal. There is a way in between. In cross-examination, he admits that there was total land 60'x22' lying vacant, out of which Gokul was allotted only 25'x30' land. He denied that on 04.03.1989 Devi Lal son of Manna Lal had submitted an application to the Panchayat for allotment of this land measuring 60'x20'. He admits that his signature are at 'A to B' on a notice Ex.D-1. He also admits that receipt (Ex.D-2) has been issued by Panchayat. On perusal, of notice (Ex.D-1), it reveals that a notice was given by Sarpanch of the Panchayat on 29.5.1989 to the effect that Manna lal has forcefully taken into possession by stocking stone on the land of Panchayat situated in the west side of his house and it was informed by this notice to remove the possession immediately, within 3 days. Receipt (Ex.D-2) is issued by the Panchayat on 4.3.1989 on deposition of Rs.5.50/- by Devi lal son of Manna Lal in the Panchayat. Francis (PW-2) states in cross-examination that the Panchayat had turned down the request of Devi lal for allotment of land, but he is not sure whether Devi lal was informed accordingly or not. He also admits that Manna lal, father of Devi Lal had given him Rs.750/- as cost of this land. He issued receipt of only Rs.425/-. Rest of the amount Rs.375/- was deposited in Panchayat, when Manna Lal did not take it back. He also admits that Manna lal, father of Devi Lal had given him Rs.750/- as cost of this land. He issued receipt of only Rs.425/-. Rest of the amount Rs.375/- was deposited in Panchayat, when Manna Lal did not take it back. In cross-examination Gokul (PW-1) states that he was handed over possession prior to issue of lease deed and a written proceeding was drawn thereof. he further states that he went on 19.5.1990 at 9 PM to dig foundation for constructing the house. At that time, accused told him to run away. He had submitted on 20.05.1990 an application Ex.P-4 in Police Station Ramganjmandi. He admits that it has been correctly mentioned in Ex. P-3 that possession on disputed plot is that of accused and he will remove the same within 15 days. After 6 months of this compromise Gokul (PW-1) went on disputed plot, even then, the plot was in possession of accused and accused had asked him to run away from the plot, he has taken a stay order from Court. Thereafter, he did not go to police and initiated proceedings only in Court. 12. Admissions made by Gokul (PW-1) and Francis (PW-2) Sarpanch are sufficient to believe that the disputed piece of land, though allotted on 13.1.1990 by Panchayat to Gokul, yet possession of the same was with accused Manna lal, who is father of Satya Narayn and it continued even thereafter. It reveals that after allotment by Gram Panchayat, complainant Gokul tried to dig foundation for construction of a house but he could not succeed on account of resistance shown by accused party. It also reveals that very much in the year 1989, the disputed piece of land was in possession of accused party. In notice (Ex.D-1) dated 29.05.1989, the Panchayat, itself, has admitted that possession is with accused party. From receipt (Ex.D-2) dated 04.03.1989, statement given by accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and another documents admitted by accused side also indicate that prior to allotment of disputed land which in adjacent to house of accused party, to Gokul, accused party tried to get allotted in their name, as they were already in possession thereof since long. In State of Rajasthan v. Dipti Ram, 2001 Cri. P.C. and another documents admitted by accused side also indicate that prior to allotment of disputed land which in adjacent to house of accused party, to Gokul, accused party tried to get allotted in their name, as they were already in possession thereof since long. In State of Rajasthan v. Dipti Ram, 2001 Cri. L.J. page 3910, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "The further case of the complainant (PW-4) Taruram is that the accused respondent has illegally taken over the possession of the land in dispute,which was in his possession. Since the land in question was allotted to the complainant (PW-4) Taruram on 02.04.1993 and accused respondent has been found in possession earlier to that,therefore no case of criminal trespass can be held to be proved. In order to satisfy the conditions of Section 441, IPC it must be established that the person entered in possession over the premises with intent to commit an offence. Mere Occupation even if illegal cannot amount to criminal trespass, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Kanwal Sood v. Nawal Kishore, AIR 1983 SC 159 : (1983 Cri. LJ 173)." 13. The same situation lies here i.e. the disputed land was in possession of accused party. Though technically it may sound illegal, yet the possession was with them. As such, finding of the learned Special Judge by which he has convicted and sentenced the accused of offence 447 I.P.C, cannot be sustained, so also the finding of conviction for offence under Section 3(1) (v) Act of 1989 do not hold any force of Law. 14. For the reasons stated above, finding of the learned Special Judge convicting the appellant of the charges for offence under Sections 447 I.P.C and 3 (1)(v) of the Act of 1989, are liable to be set aside, as they are based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and this appeal is liable to be accepted. 15. Therefore, the appeal of Satya Narayn S/o Shri Manna Lal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 2.7.1992 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 16. 15. Therefore, the appeal of Satya Narayn S/o Shri Manna Lal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 2.7.1992 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 16. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Manna lal is directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.