JHALLU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS /accused Jhalla, Ramashray, Brindawan and Ramswaroop have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No.65/1994 whereby each of the appellants/accused had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Act') and had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months to each of the appellant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that in between complainant and appellants/ accused persons houses, there is a way to come in and go out and this is the only way for use of complainant and his family members. Complainant submitted in his report (Ex.P/3) that previously the accused persons blocked their path through which he could come in and go out of his house. Swamideen, who was the father of complainant, applied under section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, that his right of way should be restored and won the case in second appeal No.475/A-13-1971-72 which was decided on 27.12.1972 by Commissioner, Rewa. After that, the Naib Tahsildar by his order passed on 1.8.1975 restored the right of way to him. When complainant Ramprasad had gone out of station on election work, in the intervening night of 23.11.1993, the appellants/accused had constructed a wall on the 10 ft. x 20 ft. outer passage/way of the complainant and had installed an iron gate in the wall. When his family members tried to stop the construction, the appellants had abused them by using filthy language and armed with 'ballam', 'farsa' and 'lathi' ran behind them to assault them and shouted at them to go away as it was not their land and the house of 'harijan' could not exist among their houses. Appellants further shouted at them that complainant could not be permitted to live among them as they could neither use the water touched by them nor keep relations with them. Appellants did not permit them to pass from the encroached way and threatened them that if they try to pass from there, they would be killed. A detailed report of the incident was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Chandla. After enquiry, crime was registered against the appellants/accused under sections 447, 294 and 506-B I.P.C. and sections

(3.) IN order to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses and two witnesses were examined in defence. The defence of the appellants is of false implication on the basis of false FIR (Ex.P/3), which was made by complainant Ramprasad (PW. 1) at Police Station Chandla, District Chhatarpur.