Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Hadman Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Another - Respondent
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 108/2018
Decided On : 26-02-2020
Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit for Mr. Vikram Singh Chadwas, for the Appellants; Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP, for the Respondents
The prosecution must prove ownership and property damage to establish trespassing and property damage charges.
Headnote:
Ownership - Trespassing and Property Damage - The trial court acquitted the respondent for trespassing and property damage as the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot and the destruction of stone slabs.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant alleged that the respondent trespassed into his plot and destroyed stone slabs. The trial court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence proving ownership and destruction of stone slabs.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot and the destruction of stone slabs, leading to the acquittal of the respondent.
Issues: Ownership, Trespassing, Property Damage
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution's failure to prove ownership and property damage led to the acquittal of the respondent.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.5.2017 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jalore (for short the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No. 343/2014 whereby, the trial court has acquitted the respondent No. 2 - Kanhaiya Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.
2. This leave to appeal has been filed after a delay of 151 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer for condoning the said delay.
3. Having gone through the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 151 days in filing this leave to appeal is condoned.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The appellant, in the FIR lodged by him, has alleged that the respondent No. 2 trespassed into his plot situated in village Oadwada and destroyed some stone slabs. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the plot in question is owned by the appellant. It is observed by the trial court that the prosecution has also failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot in question by producing ocular or documentary evidence. The trial court has further observed that it has come on record that a civil suit in respect of the ownership over the plot in question is going on between the appellant and the respondent No. 2. It is also observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent No. 2 had destroyed around 100 stone slabs in question. The trial court, thus, acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.
6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and after carefully scrutinize the record of the trial court, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC because the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership of the appellant over the plot in question and has also failed to prove that 100 stone slabs were destroyed by the respondent No. 2.
7. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
