Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2131 (HP)

Vishwajit Singh v. State Of H P

2018-11-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, is, directed by the convict/ accused/appellant, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Special Judge (Sessions judge), Una, H.P., upon SC/ST Case No. 2 of 2009, whereunder, he convicted, besides imposed consequent sentence, upon, the convict/accused, for, his committing offences punishable under Sections 448 IPC, and, under Section 3(1)(v), of, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are on 23.11.2000, PW-1 Waryam Singh, Complainant, through registered sale deed, had prucahsed 26/40 share (0-00-26 Hec. As also two Katcha shops situated therein) of land described in Khewat Khatauni No. 392/83, Khasra No.2934, measuring 0-00-40 hectare, FOR Pw-3. Premjit, PW1 was a member of scheduled community. His cast was Chamar. PW-1 had reconstructed and renovated the shops. RCCT roof had been laid on the shops in the year 2003-2004. Sh. Sanjiv, Nephew of PW-1, had been running a Maniary shop in one of the shops. Wooden cases of the value of Rs.40,000/- had been laid in the shops. Sh. Sanjiv had closed the shop. PW-1 had been in possession of both the shops. PW-2 Paras Ram was known to the complainant. PW-2 had been residing in the are of Amb. PW-1 had entrusted the keys of the shops to PW-2. PW-2 had been asked to look for tenants for the shops. On 6.2.2008, PW-2 had found the shops being white washed by the accused. PW-2 had contacted PW-1 and wanted to know if the shops stood sold. PW-1 had denied sale of the shops. He had rushed to business premises of the accused. The accused had been asked about the circumstances under which he had taken possession of the shops in dispute. The accused had informed PW-1 that he had purchased a portion of Khasra No.2933 abutting Khasra No.2934. The shops had been located in Khasra No.2933 at the time of demarcation obtained by the accused. As such the accused had rightly occupied the shops. PW-1 was offered Rs.20,000/- and got lost. The accused was a member of Rajput community. Hehad used foul language against PW-1. PW1 had instituted complaint Ex.PW1/A against the accused at Police Station, Amb on 8.2.2008, whereon FIR Ex.PW1/A stood registered in the police station concerned against the accused. PW15 Diwakar Sharma, Dy. S.P. and PW-13 Madan Lal, Dy. S.P. had looked into the complaint of PW-1. The accused was a member of Rajput community. Hehad used foul language against PW-1. PW1 had instituted complaint Ex.PW1/A against the accused at Police Station, Amb on 8.2.2008, whereon FIR Ex.PW1/A stood registered in the police station concerned against the accused. PW15 Diwakar Sharma, Dy. S.P. and PW-13 Madan Lal, Dy. S.P. had looked into the complaint of PW-1. The police had collected pedigree tables of PW-1 and the accused person from the revenue department. Khasra No.2934 had been got demarcated. PW13 had taken into possession locks Ex.P-3 and P-4, iron rod Ex.P-5, from the accused under recovery memo Ex.PW6/A. PW-15 had taken into possession Keys Ex.P-1 and P-2 of locks from PW-2, thereafter carried and concluded all the investigation(s) formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/appellant herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offences, punishable under Section 448 of the IPC, and, under Section 3 (1)(v), of, the Schedule Caste, and, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/ appellant herein, for his hence committing the aforesaid offences. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant herein/accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The complainant, in support of the averments made in his complaint, borne in Ex. PW1/A, rendered a testification hence bearing consonance therewith, (i) testification whereof, apparently, is, bereft of any contradictions therewith, (ii) nor his testification unveils qua his embellishing or contradicting his previous statement recorded in writing. Likewise, PW-2 and PW-3 rendered testifications rather bearing the completest harmony therewith. Consequently, the afore rendered testifications of PW-1 to PW-3, (ii) given theirs being free, from, any taint, of, any inter se or intra se contradictions, vis-a-vis, their respective testifications, occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief or cross-examinations, thereupon, credence is to be imputed, vis-a-vis, their respective testifications. 10. However, the learned counsel appearing for the convict/appellant herein has contended with much vigour before this Court, (i) that with the disputed premises rather existing on khasra No.2933, and, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid khasra number, the convict/appellant herein assuming, a, valid title, in consonance, with the registered deed of conveyance executed in his favour, by its previous owner, (ii)and with PW-13 in his deposition, borne in his cross-examination, hence making a clear echoing qua the disputed shops, occurring on khasra number 2933, (iii) thereupon, the testifications, of, the afore PWs, acquiring no tenacity, and, hence, the accused/convict when he holds, a, valid title or interest, vis-a-vis, the shops existing on khasra number 2933, thereupon, he had the absolute right hence to assume possession thereof. Nowat, it is to be determined whether the complainant held any, possession thereof, and, whether he stood forcibly dispossessed therefrom, by the accused/convict. The afore harmonious testifications, rendered by the afore Pws, do visibly succor the charge framed, against, the convict/accused. Nowat, it is to be determined whether the complainant held any, possession thereof, and, whether he stood forcibly dispossessed therefrom, by the accused/convict. The afore harmonious testifications, rendered by the afore Pws, do visibly succor the charge framed, against, the convict/accused. Corroboration thereto, is, acquired, from, recovery(ies) of broken locks, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, and, iron rod, Ex.P-5, effectuated under memo Ex.PW6/A. The afore memo, carryies the signatures, of, the accused, and, of, the witnesses thereto. Even if, PW-6, one of the witness thereto, has, in his testification, rendered, an echoing qua the accused, not, in his presence producing the items recovered thereunder, yet with his not denying, the occurrence thereon, of his signatures, (a) nor his making further disclosure qua his scribing, his signatures thereon, under coercion or exertion exercised upon him, by the Investigating Officer, (b) thereupon, with the statutory bar encapsulated in Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather estopping him, to depose in variance thereto, (c) thereupon, his oral deposition in contradiction, to, the recitals borne therein, and, rather with the recitals borne therein, being authored by him, hence renders, all the recitals borne therein, to carry tenacity, dehors, any, oral testification rendered in contradiction thereto. Furthermore, with hence efficacious proof standing lent, vis-a-vis, the afore memo, (d) thereupon, it is concluded that hence the accused, with, the user of iron rod, Ex.P-5, had broken the locks, Ex.P-3 and P-4, installed upon, the shutter of the disputed shop, by the complainant, (e) hence, thereupon it is concluded that the accused, had assumed, rather forcible possession of the disputed shop, (f) dehors his being owner thereof. Furthermore, with Ex.P1 and P-2, comprising the keys of the broken locks, installed upon the shutter of the disputed shop, installation whereof thereon was made by the complainant, prior to theirs, being broken by the accused, and, keys whereof stood recovered, under memo Ex.PW2/A, (g) memo whereof stood proven by PW-2, (h) witness whereof, during the course, of, his being held, to, cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, rather stood omitted by the latter, to be, hence, meted appropriate suggestion, for, hence eliciting from him, rather echoings qua the afore memo rather being falsely prepared or the afore keys borne in Ex.P-1, and, in P-2, also not comprising the keys, of, the locks installed, on the shutter, of the disputed premises, by the complainant, (i) thereupon, it is concluded qua the accused/convict after breaking open the locks, installed, upon, the shutter, of, the disputed shop, by the complainant, conspicuously with the user of iron rod, hence his thereafter illegally assuming rather possession, of the disputed shops. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.