LAWS(MPH)-1997-10-44

VISHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On October 24, 1997
VISHAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in these two appeals were accused 1,2 and 3 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 39/91. There were 22 accused apart from 4 persons who had absconded. Some were convicted by the Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 1.10.1993. On appeals, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of these three appellants with some modifications and acquitted the rest.

(2.) ON 25.6.1990 the accused and the 4 absconding persons were said to be cultivating a land known as 'Kathotiya Har'. Though pattas had been issued in favour of some of the accused and the land was registered in their name, there were disputes relating to the same which were pending before the Revenue Authorities. The rival claimants claimed to be in possession of the land and were protesting against the claim of the accused and resisting the attempts of the accused to plough the land. On the aforesaid date the occurrence took place between the two groups resulting in the death of 4 persons of the complainant's group. The appellants and the other accused were charged with offences under sections 147,148,302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. Two of them were also charged for having hatched a criminal conspiracy for committing the offences. The Sessions Judge acquitted 9 accused including those charged with criminal conspiracy and convicted the remaining 13 and sentenced them to various terms of -imprisonment including sentence of death awarded against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994. The High Court acquitted 10 more persons and confirmed the conviction and sentence of three of them. So far as the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1994 are concerned the High Court converted the sentence of death to life imprisonment and also set aside the conviction under section 147, I.P.C.

(3.) WE are unable to accept any of the aforesaid contentions. No doubt the entry in the revenue records was made in favour of the appellants and their men but such an entry could only give rise to a rebuttable presumption. Admittedly, the proceedings were pending and the parties were challenging the correctness of entries in the revenue records. On the basis of the evidence on record the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellants and their men could not be said to have been in possession. The High Court has observed that the statutory presumption under section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was rebutted by the evidence of PW 23 and others who claimed that the disputed land was in their possession. We do not find any error in the appreciation of the evidence made by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent, State of Madhya Pradesh has drawn our attention to the relevant records and submitted that the entries in the records do not substantiate the case of the appellants as the names of other persons were also mentioned therein as in possession. It is unnecessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter in these proceedings. It is sufficient to point out that the conclusion of the High Court on the question of possession does not suffer from any error.