DIWAKAR RAO INGLE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04.02.1998 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No. 255/96, whereby, the appellants were convicted under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act, 1989") and have been sentenced for a period of 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 300/-, in absence of payment of fine, further the accused had to undergo the sentence of 1 month R.I. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 i.e. Keshav Rao Ingle has breath his last and, as such, the appeal against him stands abated and his name has been deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused prior to 13.01.1995 at village Pulalikala encroached upon the land of the complainant Ratan Singh who belong to SC, ST while the accused do not belong to the said caste. The land was bearing khasra No. 482 ad-measuring 0.263 hectares. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused have forcefully buried the dead body of their family members in the said land and have constructed the Graves and thereby have occupied the land illegally belonging to the complainant. It was therefore case of the prosecution that the land owned by the complainant who belongs to SC ST caste has been deprived of the same and the offence was committed.

(2.) Learned Court below while convicting the accused come to a conclusion that the accused have constructed the Graves over the land belonging to the accused and have relied on the statement of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and has relied on the documents. Thereby the finding was recorded to hold the accused guilty, hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has committed an apparent wrong. He went through the statement of the complainant and the statement of Patwari and other witness and submits that in order to convict the accused there has to be a direct clinching evidence that the act is committed by them, which is missing in the instant case and submits that the conviction has been made on the probabilities, which is not the spirit of the criminal trial. He states that since in order to convict a person there has to be pin point connection and the evidence should point out that the accused have encroached upon the land that of the complainant. In absence of that, the finding is perverse and cannot be sustainable.