SURJIT KAUR Vs. JAIMAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment dated 24th November, 1999, delivered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Sections 218 IPC in a complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

(2.) Brief factual background of the case is that complainant Surjit Kaur filed a complaint against accused Jaimat Rai (Ex-Patwari) alleging that the accused made overwriting in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, thereby substituting Killa No. 13/2 for 13/1 and the same position was repeated in the Khasra Girdawari. According to complainant, the accused did this as Killa No. 13/1 is a fertile and valuable land. By this act, the accused caused loss to the complainant as certain persons had taken loan against land comprised in Killa No. 13/2. The complainant alleged that she came to know about this act of the accused on 28.3.1991, immediately where after Gurdev Singh, son of the complainant, moved an application before Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. However, no action was taken. Resultantly, the instant complaint was lodged. The complaint was dismissed on 19th September, 1992 by the trial court. However, on a revision being filed by the complainant, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa set-aside the said order, vide order dated 25th August, 1993 and directed the trial court to consider the matter afresh. On 1st March, 1995, the accused was summoned to face trial under Sections 218 and 425 IPC. He was later charged for offence under Section 218 IPC only vide order dated 12th September, 1998. The complainant thereafter adduced her evidence. She stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses i.e. Joginder Singh Patwari and Gurdev Singh as PW-2 & PW3 respectively. On being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused gave the version that the complaint was motivated as Gurdev Singh had to pay Rs. 50,000-55,000/- as arrears of land revenue and when he was asked to deposit the same by the accused, he lodged the instant complaint through his mother. In defence, the accused examined one witness namely, Krishan Lal as DW1. After considering the evidence led before the court and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, it came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond doubt and thus accused was entitled to acquittal. Aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that accused was not guilty. According to him, Killa No. 13/1 (4-0), comprised in Rect. No. 77 was owned by Ujagar Singh, husband of the complainant as was evident from the Jamabandis for the years 1961-62, 1968-69. Later in Jamabandis for the years 1978-79 and 1983-84, the complainant was shown as owner. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the overwriting was made and Killa Number was changed to 13/2, against which sons of one Kaka Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the said Killa No. 13/2 with the said bank. This overwriting, according to learned counsel, was done by the accused to cause loss to the complainant burdening her with discharge of loan of Rs. 40,000/-. He has further submitted that cogent evidence on record in support of the case of the complainant has been ignored from consideration by the court below.