Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 418 (RAJ)

Hadman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.5.2017 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jalore (for short the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No. 343/2014 whereby, the trial court has acquitted the respondent No. 2 - Kanhaiya Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. 2. This leave to appeal has been filed after a delay of 151 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer for condoning the said delay. 3. Having gone through the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 151 days in filing this leave to appeal is condoned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The appellant, in the FIR lodged by him, has alleged that the respondent No. 2 trespassed into his plot situated in village Oadwada and destroyed some stone slabs. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the plot in question is owned by the appellant. It is observed by the trial court that the prosecution has also failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot in question by producing ocular or documentary evidence. The trial court has further observed that it has come on record that a civil suit in respect of the ownership over the plot in question is going on between the appellant and the respondent No. 2. It is also observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent No. 2 had destroyed around 100 stone slabs in question. The trial court, thus, acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. 6. It is also observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent No. 2 had destroyed around 100 stone slabs in question. The trial court, thus, acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and after carefully scrutinize the record of the trial court, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC because the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot in question and has also failed to prove that 100 stone slabs were destroyed by the respondent No. 2. 7. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.