BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 18.7.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Alwar in Sessions Case No.230/1993 by which appellant has been convicted for the offences u/s 447, 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to be as "the SC & ST Act") and sentenced as follows :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_102_LAWS(RAJ)9_2016.html</FRM>

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 27.1.1993 at about 3.15 PM, complainant Rati Ram (PW-4) submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) before SHO, Police Station Sadar (Alwar) stating therein that his mother-in-law, Smt. Jummi is having agricultural land bearing Khasra No.37 admeasuring 3 bighas, at Bahadurpur. Smt. Jummi is recorded tenant of the said land having possession over it. Smt. Jummi filed a suit before the Court of Assistant Collector, Alwar against Heera Lal and Banwari Lal in which temporary injunction was granted in favour of her. Learned Assistant Collector, Alwar restrained Heera Lal and Banwari Lal not to interfere in possession of Smt. Jummi. Mustard crop belonging to Smt. Jummi was there in the field. At about 9-10 AM, Banwari Lal, Kistoori and Prem along with 20-25 other persons entered into the field. They started to cut the mustard crop. On this report, Police lodged a formal FIR No.25/1993 (Ex.P-3). After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against accused Banwari Lal. Learned trial court framed charges for the offence u/s 447, 379 IPC and section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST Act. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The accused appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant stated the evidence of the prosecution to be false and further stated that he did not cut the mustard crop of Smt. Jummi. She has nothing to do with this agricultural field. She did not cultivate any crop in this agriculture field. From defence side, three witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited. Learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 18.7.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disputed land is in the name of accused appellant. Prosecution did not produce any evidence to prove possession and title of Smt. Jummi (PW-1). Shyamlal Gupta (PW-11), Patwari of the area, has stated that the disputed agriculture field belongs to Banwari. Smt. Jummi (PW-1) has stated that the disputed agricultural field bearing Khasra No.37 was bequeathed to her by father-in-law, Chhota. Will is Ex.P-13. In cross examination, she admits that in the Will, Khasra No.37 does not find place. Learned counsel submits that there are many discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. There are substantial improvements and contradictions in their statements. On confrontation, the witnesses have admitted several contradictions and omissions in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Despite of that, learned trial court has believed the witnesses.