Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 254 (JHR)

Chakradhari Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-24

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for grant of special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for presenting the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in complaint case no.1366 of 2012. 3. The case of the complainant is that he was delivered possession of the place of occurrence land vide Execution Case No.25 of 1998. On 23.07.2012 at 10:00 am when the complainant along with his son were weaving and removing the seedlings from the plot, all the accused persons entered into the land and damaged the entire seedlings worth Rs.5,00,000/-. They also abused and assaulted the complainant and his son. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as C.W.1, his son Suraj Kumar Singh as C.W.2 and one Suresh Sahu as C.W.3. The C.W.1 and C.W.2 did not whisper even a word of their being assaulted or any hurt being caused to them. 4. C.W.1 only stated that the accused persons ploughed the place of occurrence land and damaged the entire cultivable potato and ginger and accused persons ordered them to leave the spot. C.W.1 further stated that he does not have any receipt regarding the purchase of the seedlings of potato or ginger. C.W.2 stated that the accused persons entered their field and damaged the seedlings and also threatened to cause death. C.W.3 who is a labour apparently engaged by the complainant and his son stated that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and damaged the potato and ginger seedlings. 5. From the side of the defence, one defence witness was examined as D.W.1. He has stated that accused persons have been in cultivable possession of the place of occurrence land since last 15 to 20 years. 6. 5. From the side of the defence, one defence witness was examined as D.W.1. He has stated that accused persons have been in cultivable possession of the place of occurrence land since last 15 to 20 years. 6. Learned trial court considered the fact that when the alleged injured persons being the C.W.1 and C.W.2 themselves have not whisper a word of being assaulted or hurt having been caused to them hence, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and also considered the fact that without any plausible reason the complainant did not bring on record the alleged document regarding delivery of possession of the place of occurrence land in his favour in Execution Case No.25 of 1998 and thus failed to prove his possession over the place of occurrence land by any cogent evidence. Hence, the trial court acquitted the accused persons of the case for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code also. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the C.W.3 has stated about the accused persons having assaulted the C.W.1 and the learned trial court erred in not taking into consideration that there was delay in lodging the complaint and the fact that the C.W.3 is not related to the C.W.1 and C.W.2. Hence, it is submitted that the special leave be granted to present the appeal. 8. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned court below having rightly held that the complainant has failed to establish the charge either for the offence punishable under Section 323 or 447 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is submitted that special leave ought not be granted to the appellant to present this appeal. 9. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that there is no plausible reason as to why the C.W.1 who was allegedly being assaulted as per the statement of C.W.3, himself has not stated anything about any assault made to him nor his son C.W.2 who claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence has whispered a word about any assault to the C.W.1. Further though it is the case of the complainant that at the time of alleged occurrence, they were weaving and removing the seedlings but they improvise their case by deposing that the entire cultivable potato and ginger was damaged by the accused persons. As rightly considered by the learned trial court without any plausible reason, the document regarding delivery of possession of place of occurrence land in favour of the complainant has been withheld from the trial court. There is no evidence as to in what manner and from which date the complainant had been in possession of the place of occurrence land rather it is the case of the accused persons that they have been in cultivable possession of the place of occurrence land since last 15 to 20 years which has come through the D.W.1 examined on their behalf. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the special leave to present the appeal is not to be granted. Accordingly, this interlocutory application being without any merit is rejected. 10. Consequently this Acquittal Appeal (C) No.4 of 2018 is dismissed.