KHINWARAM AND 15 OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, namely, Khinwaram, Banwari, Dev Karan, Joogram, Guljhari, Shishram, Rohitash, Mohar Singh, Jeeram, Sundaram, Kehruram, Gurudayal, Rameshwar, Ramswrup, Harlal, & Maturam, have been convicted & sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_132_LAWS(RAJ)1_19911.html</FRM> A case against the appellants had been registered on a typed complainant for the incident alleged to have taken place on 2-9-1981, involving 17 persons and the complainant was sent for investigation u/s 156 (3), Crimial P.C. to police station Singhana by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Khetri.

(2.) In the complainant, it had been alleged that in village Jaisinghsar, Khasra No. 67 was pasture land where plots were allotted to ten Harisans for residential purpose by the Tehsildar, Khetri in Dec., 1974 and the possession there of was also handed over to the allottees. However, the villagers of Jaisinghsar & Sarpanch Juglal made a complaint against the complainant (Hanumanaram) to the Tehsildar Khetri that the complainant & others were making unauthorised possession over the land bearing khasra No. 67 and they sought their removal from the land. It had been alleged that in the night of 2-8-81 at about 11 to 11 Oclock, 17 persons duly armed with lathis, axes, etc. and started damaging the house of Ved Prakash and then carried away tin-sheets after setting fire the house of Dharampal situated nearby the house of Ved Prakash. It has further alleged that the complainant & one Mungaram went to the police station on the same night on a tractor of one Krishan but none at the police station was prepared to record on the report.

(3.) First contention on behalf of the appellants before this Court was that the allegation against the appellants are vague in general as no specific overt act has been assigned to any of them and that apart, there is nothing on record to suggest as to which of he accused damaged the house and who had lit the fire and carried away tin-sheds inasmuch as the evidence being omnibus does not establish the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the allege offences. On the night of the incident that too in the mid at about 12 O' clock, admittedly there was darkness being darknight and that bring so, there was no source of light nor it was possible for the prosecution witnesses to have identified the accused persons therefore, it can be inferred that the appellants are being and have been falsely involved in the case mere on the assumption and suspicion created on account of rivalry in between the parties, Shri Sunda added. Shri Sunda urged that the matter of unlawful possession by the complainant and other persons on the pasture land was being protested by the accused appellants because they had unauthorisedly constructed the houses without any permission and, therefore, being prejudiced by their protest, they had rivalry between the parties which is the outcome of the registration of this false criminal case, whereas no offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant even on the evidence on record which has wrongly been appreciated and scanned by the trial Court and in this view of the matter, the prosecution being highly suspicion and doubtful, even if taken at its face value, no offence against the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned conviction on that basis is not sustainable.