MUKESH PANWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is at the instance of the complainant challenging the judgment dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Ac) Mandsaur in Special Sessions Trial No.91/05, by which the respondent No.2 Satyanarayan has been acquitted of offence under Section 353, 294, 506(B) and 477 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, who was posted as Patwari in Nahargarh, had made a report that on 23.4.2005 at 9.30 a.m. he had visited Survey No.1449 Area 0.03 to prevent the encroachment and when he was preparing the Panchnama on the spot, the respondent No.2 Satyanarayan had come and had abused him and had taken the Panchnama, which was an official document, and had torn it. He had prevented the complainant from performing the official duty and had also committed offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by abusing him using caste related words. THE investigation was done on the said complaint and the Challan was filed, on the basis of which the respondent No.2 was charged for commission of the alleged offences but in the trial, the said charges were not proved, therefore, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the alleged offences.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the trial Court has minutely examined oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and has noted the various contradiction and has rightly reached to the conclusion that the alleged offence has not been proved against the respondent No.2. The trial Court has analyzed the statement of the complainant (PW -2) Mukesh and has noted that he had admitted in his cross -examination that in his application to the Tehsildar dated 27.4.2005; he had stated the date of incident to be 24.4.2005 whereas the Panchnama (Ex.P/5) was prepared by him on 22.4.2005. It has further been noted that in the Panchnama (Ex.P/5) the name of the respondent No.2 has not been mentioned. The applicant had also admitted that in the letter (Ex.P/6) written to the Tehsildar, neither the date was mentioned nor the name of the respondent No.2 was mentioned. The statement of the complainant about his signature on Ex.P/8 has also found to be false. It has also been noted that in Ex.P/4, there is no mention of encroachment by the respondent No.2 and there was no order by any higher Revenue Officer for stopping the encroachment in Survey No.1449. It has also been noted that in the Panchnama (Ex.D/3) there is no mention of date and no mention of the abuses relating to caste. The complainant had also admitted that he had not mentioned in the police statement that the respondent No.2 had torn the other documents also apart from the Panchnama. The trial Court has noted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant. Same was the position in respect of the other witnesses, namely PW -3 Rameshwar and PW -4 Raju. These witnesses have failed to disclose even the correct date of the alleged incident. On the different documents, different dates of the incident have been mentioned. PW -1 Dinesh Verma who is the Investigating Officer, has admitted that no torn document was seized by him. The trial Court after examining the aforesaid material witnesses and relevant documents, has rightly reached to the conclusion that the alleged offence under Section 353, 294, 506(B) and 477 IPC as also Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not proved by the prosecution against the respondent No.2.