LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-120

GOPALDAS ISHWARDAS AGRAWAL Vs. SHABBIR AHMAD PYAR MOHAMOD

Decided On February 21, 2007
GOPALDAS ISHWARDAS AGRAWAL Appellant
V/S
SHABBIR AHMAD PYAR MOHAMAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the appellant who is original complainant challenges the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, khamgaon dated 10. 12. 1996 in Criminal appeal No. 28/1992 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against judgment and order of conviction dated 7. 5. 1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, jalgaon Jamod in Criminal Case No. 309/ 1986 convicting respondent No. 1 for offence punishable under section 447 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- (Rs. Two hundred fifty only) in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for the period of 10 days.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 - complainant filed criminal case No. 309/86 against respondent no. 1 - accused alleging offence punishable under section 447 of the Indian penal Code. It was the case of the complainant that on 10. 6. 1996 when he was cultivating his field the accused trespassed upon the said field and pelted stones. According to the complainant, the accused dispossessed him from the said field which was purchased by him in Misc. Civil Darkhast no. 10/1984. According to the complainant, the possession of the field which was given to the complainant in execution of the decree passed against the accused. During the trial, the complainant examined himself and Sumanta Khotere who according to the complainant was driving the tractor on the date of the incident.

(3.) The Magistrate upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution convicted the accused and sentenced him as above. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction holding that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The Appellate court acquitted the accused on the following grounds: - (1) The complainant had not proved the possession of the field on 10. 6. 1986. (2) The complainant had not proved that the accused had made encroachment.