(1.) RAHTU Giri (A1), his son Raju Giri (A2) and his grandson Naresh Giri (A3) were tried in Sessions Trial No. 492 of 1999 and they were found guilty for the offence of Sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./ S.T. Act (for brevity, hereinafter will be called as 'the Act'). Accordingly they have been sentenced.
(2.) MANOHAR Lal (PW1) was as Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter called the A.C.O.) of the area where the incident took place. In compliance of the order of Divisional Commissioner, PW1 went along with his subordinate staff to remove the illegal encroachment on the land of Gram Sabha on 05.02.1999. He was being accompanied by Gram Pradhan Smt. Prakashi Devi and members of Consolidation Committee, comprising of civil persons of the village nay 20 - 25 local farmers. When he approached to the field No. 305 owned by A1, he was resisted by the accused persons by hurling filthy abuses. Accused persons were armed with batons and sickles and were opposing their misdeed of encroachment. The informant PW1 was insulted by using caste indicative abuses besides the threat to kill him. So, relinquishing the government work, he returned along with his staff to avoid any mishappening at the spot. The incident took place around 4:30 P.M. He then reported the matter to the Consolidation Officer, who in turn referred the matter to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and from where, the matter was again referred to the Police Station, Kotwali, Roorkee on dated 05.02.1999, on the same day. Thus, the F.I.R. could be lodged at the Police Station on 06.02.1999 at 11:45 A.M. Police submitted the chargesheet after culmination of the investigation for the offences of Section 353, 504 and 506 IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Charges were accordingly levelled against the appellants.
(3.) TILAK Raj (PW6) has also become hostile and did not support the incident. He only states regarding the evidence of misbehaving and hurling abuses to the A.C.O. in that evening. So, the evidence of PW6 is also of no avail, which cannot brush aside the testimony of a number of other eyewitnesses, who have supported the prosecution version. Even otherwise, PW1 was a responsible officer of Naib Tehsildar Rank. He did not have any personal grudge to depose against the accused persons to prove the allegations of the F.I.R. lodged by him.