JANGGU ALIAS SHOBHIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who stand convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 447 and 447/34, IPC have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- under each count; in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 11/2 month for each default, have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27-1-98 passed in Criminal Case No. 165/97 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the land Sy. Nos. 53 and 54 originally belonged to one Sohansai from whom somewhere in the year 1993 the property was purchased by the complainant Pawansai in the name of his son's wife namely Bhanudevi. After some time he came in possession of the property and carried out the agricultural operation. On 18-11-94 under Ex. P/4 the first information report, he reported to the police that said Sy. Nos. 53 and 54 were purchased by him in the name of his daughter-in-law somewhere in the year 1993, but the applicants who were already in possession were not ready and willing to deliver the possession to the complainant. He also informed to police that he had sown the paddy in the field, but accused persons had also sown paddy in the said field and harvested the crop. He submitted to the police that action be taken against the accused persons. After recording statements, preparing the Panchnamas and collecting the documents from the Revenue Deptt., the prosecution agency filed the challan. The trial Court after hearing the parties convicted the accused persons who being aggrieved by the same have filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellants submits that present is a case where the complainant himself did not say that the property which was already in possession of the accused persons was ever delivered to the complainant party. He submits that unless the complainant party shows and proves that the possession was delivered to the complainant party and thereafter they were dispossessed by the accused, the accused could not be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(5). He submits that the complainants or the prosecution did not choose to file the original or certified copy of the sale deed, therefore, the Court would always be at a loss to appreciate the recitals recorded in the said sale deed. According to him, the appellants were already in possession and were entitled to maintain their possession.