HARIMOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Village Kemla falls within the jurisdiction of Patwar Mandal Neemkheda. In village Kemla Kotari over Khasra No. 8/4 having area of 10 bighas, there was a dispute for possession between the appellant Harimohan, on one side and Gopal Lal the deceased and his brother Bhanwar Lal, residents of village Lakheri being another side. As per revenue record, the said land was jointly owned by Nand Lal, Gopal Lal the deceased, Bhanwar Lal their father Anda, Pushpa Bai widow of Ramchandra and Sugna and Manju Bai, daughters of Ramchandra. Sometime before the occurrence, appellant Harimohan was induced as tenant and later proceedings to disposs him were initiated. The only question germane in this case is whether actual physical possession of the land was taken back from the appellant Harimohan or not?

(2.) The prosecution has relied upon report of possession record (Exhibit -P/32) dated 30.11.2002 prepared under the orders of Tehsildar, Nainwa, District Bundi, to say that in the absence of the appellant Harimohan, the possession of the said land was delivered to the complainant party, whereas accused in defence has asserted that Exhibit -P/32 is a sham. It was prepared in the office and actual physical possession was never handed over to the complainant party. It was further case of the defence that the appellant Harimohan was never dispossessed and he continued to remain in the possession of the land. On 27.3.2003, at 5:00 -6:00 PM, in village Kemla Kotari, the occurrence had ensued resulting into death of Gopal Lal, who was caused injury by the appellant Harimohan on the head, when both the parties asserted their possession over the disputed field.

(3.) The appellant Harimohan was tried along with Hariprasad and Dhanraj @ Dhanna. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi vide impugned judgment dated 11.8.2006 doubted the presence of Hariprasad and Dhanraj @ Dhanna at the spot and acquitted them by granting benefit of doubt. No appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against their acquittal. The trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 11.8.2006 held the appellant guilty of offence under Ss. 302 and 447 IPC and having convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, vide a separate order of even date sentenced him as under: -