1994 Supreme(Raj) 813
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, J.
Punjraj Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 1993.
Decided On : 5-07-1994
The prosecution must prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and any delay in lodging the FIR may affect the prosecution case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - TRESPASS - SECTION 447 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - INIMICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 447 IPC for trespassing on the complainant's land. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abused the complainant, broke his plough, and threatened him with a kulhari. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that the incident took place in the field of a third person.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 447 IPC. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant and the appellant had an inimical relationship and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The court also found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of trespass under Section 447 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the prosecution case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of trespass under Section 447 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The court also found that the complainant and the appellant had an inimical relationship.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 447 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-10-93, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Case cum Sessions Judge, Balotara, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and granted him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and directed him to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
2. Accused-appellant Punraj Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses while the accused, in his defence, examined three witnesses. The learned Judge of the trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. as well as of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of the Act, 1989, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for those offences and convicted him for the offences under Section 447 I.P.C. While convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. the learned trial Court placed reliance over the statement of PW 6 ledan Ram-the informant, PW 7 Durga Ram, PW 8 Ajita Ram, PW 9 Poonma Ram and PW 5 Bhala Ram. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not place much reliance on the evidence of these very witnesses so far as the other offences are concerned. In view of the fact that these witnesses have not been believed so far as the other offences are concerned; whether on the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 447 I.P.C. can be maintained and for that purpose it is necessary to look-into the statements of these witnesses.
3. PW 5 Bhala Ram is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He has merely stated that about ten months before there was a "Jaagran" of Jogmaya in the village and they were sitting there. ledan Rain came there and stated that accused Punjraj Singh is not allowing him to go to his field. Thereafter five-ten persons, who were sitting in the Jaagran, namely, Bhola Ram, Poonma, Tejaji, Bhala Ram Master, Dalla and others went towards the place and there they saw the foot-prints of Punjraj Singh but did not see the marks of any quarrel. This witness has been declared hostile and nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which could support the prosecution case and connect the accused with the crime.
4. PW 6 Iedan Ram is the main witness, who has stated that on 8-8-92, he and his brother Durga Ram were in the field. He was cultivating his field while Durga Ram was levelling the same. At about 3.00 p.m., the accused, armed with a Kulhari, came there and abused him. He threatened him of the dire consequences if the matter is not compromised. Thereafter the accused broke the plough by Kulhari and gave beatings to him. He raised alarm, upon which Durga Ram came there. Ajita Ram Meghwal, also, came there and the accused took-up the kulhari and threatened that if he too will come through this land then he will not permit him to cross the field. In the evening, at about 7.00 p.m., when both the brothers were going to their house, the accused obstructed their way and tried to give beating to them. They, with folded-hands, asked the accused to excuse them. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the litigation is going-on between the parties and the accused has started living in the village after his retirement from the Army. He has, also, stated that there is only one "Pagdandi" for going to his field and the main road is situated at a distance of about two bighas from his house and the field of Punjraj Singh and his brother adjoins to his field and the brothers are living in the Dhani. He has, also, admitted that in the Revenue Records, the field of Punjraj Singh
Click Here to Read the rest of this document