Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, J.
Manna Lal & Anrs. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.269 of 1992
Decided On : 03-06-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Appearing Party : Ms. Sonia Shandilya, P.P.
Mere occupation of land, even if illegal, does not amount to criminal trespass unless the person entered the land with the intent to commit an offence.
Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 3(1)(V) - CRIMINAL TRESPASS - POSSESSION - INTENT TO COMMIT OFFENCE - ILLEGAL OCCUPATION - NO CRIMINAL TRESPASS - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant Gokul, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was allotted a plot of land by the Gram Panchayat for constructing a house. However, accused Manna Lal and Satya Narayn, who were already in possession of the land, resisted Gokul's attempts to take possession and construct a house. A compromise was reached between the parties, but the accused failed to vacate the land within the stipulated time. Gokul filed a complaint under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that the accused had unlawfully evicted him from the land and tried to take possession of it.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused of offences under Sections 447 IPC (criminal trespass) and 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 (unlawful eviction of a member of a Scheduled Caste community from land). However, the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the accused were already in possession of the land prior to its allotment to Gokul, and that their occupation, though illegal, did not amount to criminal trespass. The High Court also found that the accused did not have the intent to commit an offence when they entered the land, as required for a conviction under Section 447 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused were guilty of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC. 2. Whether the accused were guilty of unlawful eviction under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the accused were not guilty of criminal trespass because they were already in possession of the land prior to its allotment to Gokul. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Smt. Kanwal Sood v. Nawal Kishore, which held that mere occupation of land, even if illegal, does not amount to criminal trespass unless the person entered the land with the intent to commit an offence. 2. The High Court also held that the accused were not guilty of unlawful eviction under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act of 1989 because they did not have the intent to evict Gokul from the land on the basis of his caste. The Court noted that the accused had been in possession of the land for a long time and that they had tried to get it allotted to them before it was allotted to Gokul.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the accused.
Vijay Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 2.7.1992 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases Kota in case no. 321/1991, whereby accused appellant Satya Narayn and another Manna Lal were convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (v), Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989(hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1989) and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The trail court acquitted Ram Kanwari Bai for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) Act of 1989 and Section 427 IPC as well as Section 447 IPC read with Section 3 (1)(v) of the Act of 1989. By the same judgment appellant Manna Lal and Satya Narayn were also acquitted from the charge of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 427 IPC. During the course of hearing of appeal, Manna lal died and his appeal was dismissed as abated vide order dated 10.8.2015.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that complainant Gokul son of Narayn Meghwal resident of Amarpura submitted a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. on 17.9.1990 before Special Judicial Magistrate Kota Camp Ramganj Mandi, alleging interalia that he is by caste Chamar and Member of Scheduled Castes Community, a lease deed No.51, dated 13.01.1990 was issued by Gram Panchayat Kudayala whereby he was allotted a residential plot 25 feet x 30 feet= 750 Sq. Ft. at Village Amarpura, and was handed over the possession. On 19.05.1990, when he started construction of a house, Accused Manna lal, Satya Narayn and Ram Kanwari Bai came on the plot at about 8-9 p.m. and they started throwing away the construction material and filled up the foundation two and a half ft. Deep, dug by complainant. They told him, Chamaria do whatever you can, we will not allow a house constructed on this plot and if you construct, we will kill and expell you from the village. Complainant reported the matter to Police Station Ramganjmandi on 20.5.1990 SHO Ramganjmandi mediated and a compromise was arrived in writing that accused will leave their possession within 15 days and signed in presence of police officer. On 15.7.1990 at about 8-9 A.M., when complainant started drawing lines by lime powder for digging foundation of the house, the three accused came out from their house, holding sticks, to beat the complainant. They came on the plot and forcefully evicted the complainant from it. Witnesses Bala Ram,Udailal, Gopal, Mangilal Dhakad,etc had seen the occurrence. The complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for investigation to the SHO Ramganjmandi. SHO Ramganjmandi registered FIR No. 94/90. During investigation, recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses, inspected the site, prepared memo, collected copy of lease deed by which the plot, in question, was allotted to complainant, also collected the written compromise and arrested Manna lal, Satya Narayn and Ram Kanwari. Then, after completing the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against all the three accused before Special Judicial Magistrate Kota Camp at Ramganjmandi, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases kota. All the three accused were charged of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act 1989, Section 427 IPC and Section 447 read with Section 3(1) (v) of Act 1989. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined total 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. While refuting the evidence, accused stated that they are in possession of the plot since 10-15 years. To purchase the plot in question, they had applied before the Panchayat. It was never in possession of Gokul and they did not quarrel with the compl
