The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of title in favor of the accused in cases involving allegations of wrongful occupation, cultivation, or dispossession of land belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members.

The instant appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2002 passed in Uchkagaw P.S. Case No. 132 of 1993 whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gopalganj convicted the appellants for the offence under sections 3(iv)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

2. The prosecution case, as stated, in the fard-beyan is that on 22.7.1999 Swami Nath Ram (the informant) went to his plot no.6 to cultivate the same with gy and cSy. It is alleged that the accused persons obstructed him in cultivating the land. On 23.7.93 Swami Nath Ram went to plot no. 51 to cultivate the same but the accused persons did not allow him to cultivate the land and they took away Hal, Kudal and paddy seed worth of Rs. 500/- and they attempted to assault him. It is further stated in the Fardbeyan that Swami Nath Ram possessed plot nos. 6,7 and 51 area 6 decimals, 20 decimals and 12 decimals respectively. The plot no.7 was his homestead land which he had got from Bhudan Yagya Committee. He got plot nos. 6 and 51 from Hathwa Raj and was paying rent to State of Bihar for those land. It is further alleged that Raj Kishun Sah and Ram Dayal Sah have also taken land in plot nos. 6 and 61 but they want to capture the entire area of those plots and caused obstruction in cultivation by Swami Nath Ram who had lodged complaint in this connection to the police station where from Anchal Amin was deputed and demarked his land. The accused persons even thereafter did not allow Swami Nath Ram to cultivate his land because they were powerful persons and they wanted to dispossess him from the land.

3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under section 3 (iv)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The trial court after scrutiny the evidence convicted the appellants under section 3 (iv)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced R.I. for one year.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae has submitted that the trial court has committed gross error in convicting the appellants for allegedly obstructing the informant side in cultivating the land.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact in connection with the same land earlier the wife of the informant filed a case of theft and assault against the appellant and they were acquitted in that case. In fact, the land in question is the land of the appellant and as a pressure tactics to grab that land, the false case was registered against the appellants.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the trial court has committed error in convicting the appellants in the present land dispute which was in continuation of the earlier case filed by the wife of the informant and these appellants were acquitted in the previous case. He submitted that no case under section 3(iv) and (v) is made out against the appellants in this case.

8. The trial court in its judgment has also noted that fact that in this case there is no independent witness and the trial court has also found that the appellants have claimed the land in their favor on the basis of settlement from Hatwa Raj and they filed a copy of the judgment of Case No. 326 of 1989. The copy of register-2 and the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate in Case No. 814 and rent receipt to demonstrate that the appellants have right, title and possession over the land and as such the allegation of dispossession of the informant from the land is patently wrong and the trial court committed error in convicting the appellants for alleged dispossession of the informant from the land. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has also noted the fact that the witnesses have no interest in the case if they got back possession of the land, thus, in the totality of facts situation the conv