AMANPREET KAUR Vs. JASHANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking leave to appeal, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2014 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul ('SDJM' for short), whereby complaint under Sections 447, 379, 506, 148, 149, 427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), was dismissed, acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges framed against them.

(2.) efly put, facts of the case, as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 1 of its impugned judgment of acquittal, are that the complainant claimed to be permanent resident of Mehraj, Patti Kala. She further claimed to be owner of half share in the land measuring 31 kanals 14 marlas in which she had possession over Khasra No.171//17(8-0), 24(8-0). Accused No.1 Jashanpreet Kaur was owner of remaining half share along with her son Hasandeep Singh and Gursimrandeep Singh. The complainant filed civil suit No.211 dated 22.10.2007 titled as Amandeep Kaur Vs. Jashanpreet Kaur, that is suit for permanent injunction in which Court passed order of status quo. The complainant was sowing crops on the area of her share. She had sown cotton crop which was ready and ripe. On 15.10.2009 complainant along with her son Jagdev Singh, brother Gurjant Singh went to her fields to take a round at 2.00 PM. She found that accused Jashanpreet Kaur, Mehar Singh, Charanjit Singh Charna, Sukhminder Kaur, Pammi Singh, Jaswiner Kaur and Balvir Kaur etc. were plucking the cotton from her fields forcibly. Previously the accused watered the crop of complainant. The accused put the plucked cotton in the bundles. The complainant stopped the accused from doing so and told that Court passed order of status quo. The accused remained adamant and kept plucking the cotton crop. The son of the complainant called Niranjan Singh and Gurmail Singh Sarpanch. The accused were again told not to pluck the cotton. The order of the Court was shown to them. The accused took "gandasas" and "dangs" and started abusing the respectable of the village. Jashanpreet Kaur told that she had talked to Kulvir Singh Sarpanch that one Jeet Singh and nobody could harm to her. The matter was reported to the police but accused had link with ruling party and due to party fiction no action was taken and ultimately an application dated 19.10.2009 filed to SSP and DSP, even then no action was taken.

(3.) After charge evidence was produced by the complainantapplicant, who produced as many as three witnesses, besides producing other documentary evidence on record. On closing the evidence of the complainant, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges, alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. In their defence, accused produced two witnesses, besides producing other documentary evidence.