The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the context of an ongoing civil dispute, to secure a conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The matter comes up on application for early hearing.

3. Counsel for the appellants submit that there is urgency in matter as appellant no.3 Shri Pal S/o. Hari Ram has been selected on the post of School Lecturer (Geography) after undergoing Lecturer (School Education), Examination, 2018 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, having Roll No.599118 and has Merit position No.167. Counsel for the appellant further submits that after due selection, appellant no.3 Shri Pal has been called for counselling vide Letter of Counselling dated 26.09.2020 and counselling is schedule to take place on 09.02.2021.

4. Looking into heavy Board, though, finally hearing of case is not likely to take place for long, however, taking into consideration the fact that appellant no.3, who is well educated young boy and has come in merit and his counselling is schedule to take place on 09.02.2021 shall be deprived of right to employment in case the appeal is not finally heard on priority.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant agrees to the fact that looking into ongoing selection process and if final hearing do not take place, it shall have direct impact on career of accused-appellant no.3. Thus, with the consent of counsel for the parties the matter is agreed to be heard finally.

6. This Court after hearing such submissions is of considered view that looking into record of case as well as giving credence to the fact that appellant no.3 Shri Pal has been selected as School Lecturer (Geography), this Court is inclined to hear the case finally on merits today itself.

7. Counsel for the appellants submit that the allegation against present appellants is that while they were living alongwith their family members at village Mungra, Tehsil Padhpadra, District Barmer, a dispute arose between them and complainant regarding the adjacent plot, which resulted in filing of complaint on 28.5.2008, whereupon a case FIR No.307/08 came to be registered at Police Station, Balora for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 427, 452 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act.

8. Counsel for the appellants submit that then the trial commenced for offence under Sections 448/34, 323 IPC and Section 3(l)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

9. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases (Sessions Court), Balotra, District Barmer vide judgment dated 27.01.2011 proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as follows:

U/s.448/34 IPC

Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days SI each.

U/s.323 IPC

Six months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days SI each.

U/s.3(l)(v) of SC/ST Act

One year's SI and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's SI each.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

10. The said judgment of conviction is under challenge by way of this appeal.

11. Counsel for the appellants submit that civil suits were going on between present appellants. Complainant-Shiv Lal S/o. Babulal and one Babulal filed a civil suit bearing No.5/08, wherein principal prayer was for way in the land in-question, which was being sought by the complainant. Copy of civil proceedings are annexed alongwith record as Exhibit-D/8 to Exhibit-D/24. Counsel for the appellants submit that another suit was filed by appellant Suresh against Babulal for the same disputed land. Counsel for the appellant submits that in suit filed Babulal, Commissioner after making inspection made a report on 28.1.2008 reflecting status against complainant's property, thus, as a counter-blast to that the present FIR was lodged on 29.01.2008. Counsel for the appellants submit that conviction under Section 3(l)(v) of SC/ST Act is not attracted in present case as no dis-possession of complainant has been caused by present appe