KISHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, preferred by the complainant against order dated 10.8.2006 of acquittal, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, deserves to be dismissed in limine for the reasons noticed hereunder: In case FIR No. 208 dated 9.10.2004, under Sections 436/452/379/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution allegation was that the acquitted accused put the paddy crop of the first informant on fire by entering upon that land and had also taken away an amount of Rs.15,000/- from his house.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge recorded an elaborate discussion noticing, inter alia, in the course thereof that the revenue record available on the file indicated that it was Daulat Ram, accused (and not Kishna Ram complainant, the first informant-petitioner before this Court) who was in possession of that land. It was also noticed that the finding in favour of proprietary and possessory title of Daulat Ram accused was also buttressed by Civil Court finding which was not indicated to have been set aside by any higher Court. The learned Trial Judge also noticed that all the named PWs had conceded in the course of cross-examination that the possession on the land under reference was that of Daulat Ram accused. It was also conceded by the first informant (petitioner before this Court) in the crossexamination that a suit filed by him for obtaining possession of the land aforementioned where the alleged occurrence had taken place, was dismissed and he had not been able to obtain possession of that land from Daulat Ram accused. It was also noticed that it was Daulat Ram who was conceded by PW2 Sohan Singh to have sown the crop on the land under reference.

(3.) In so far as the taking away of Rs.15,000/- from the house of the petitioner is concerned, it was also disbelieved by noticing the lacunae in the course of the prosecution evidence. The detailed facts in the behalf are indicated in para 7 of the impugned judgment. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order which would justify interference by this Court. Dismissed.