KAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the CrPC has been preferred assailing the judmgnet dtd. 5/8/1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Cae No.49/1993, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(2.) The prosecution case is that the complainant, Shankar Salvi, a resident of village Gudel, was allotted a residential plot measuring 25 feet x 25 feet by the Gram Panchayat under a welfare scheme and was in possession thereof. It was alleged that when the complainant commenced construction of a residential house over the said plot, the accused persons, who were residents of the same village, objected to such construction. It was further alleged that on 27/8/1993 at about 8:00 p.m., the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, trespassed upon the complainants plot and demolished the construction raised thereon, causing loss estimated at about Rs.15,000.00. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant, the matter was referred for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences under Ss. 147, 447, 427 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case being triable by the Special Court, it was committed accordingly. During trial, the prosecution examined the complainant, his family members, neighbouring witnesses, the then Sarpanch and the Investigating Officer. The defence also led evidence and disputed the prosecution version, including the complainants possession over the disputed land. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charge relating to caste-based intentional insult but convicted them for the offences under Ss. 147, 447, 427 read with Sec. 149 IPC and under the relevant provision of the SC/ST Act, and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not assail the conviction recorded by the learned trial court and confine their submissions only to the question of sentence.