The prosecution must prove actual dispossession or interference with the enjoyment of rights over land or premises for a conviction under S. 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the convicted appellants, who have been found guilty for commission of offence under S. 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth in Special Cr. Case No. 73/91, decided on 6-8-1993 and have been awarded sentence of 2 year RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

( 2 ) IN all five accused persons were charged and prosecuted for commission of alleged offence under S. 3 (1) (v) or in the alternative under S. 3 (1) (x) of the Act. However, one of the accused Mana has been acquitted of the said charge but the remaining four have been found guilty only u/s. 3 (1) (v) of the Act and have been awarded punishment as mentioned above.

( 3 ) AS per the prosecution story on 12-9-1991 the appellant had gone to the field of complainant Bhoniram and started scolding him. It is said that he was also beaten with fists and legs. They had done so with an intention to grab the land of complainant Bhoniram illegally and unauthorisedly. Bhoniram had lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur, who had then forwarded it to the concerned Police Station for investigation. After usual investigation conducted by Police, charge sheet was filed before the Special Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellants, and the matter was tried by the Special Judge. The appellants appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and abjured their guilt.

( 4 ) ON appreciation of evidence available on record, out of the five accused charged and prosecuted, the present four appellants have been found guilty for commission of the said offence, the fifth one has been acquitted, as mentioned above. It is against this judgment and conviction these four appellants have preferred this Appeal.

( 5 ) I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. After going through the evidence on record, I find the following glaring infirmities staring on the face of record, which are mentioned herein below :- (I) the First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) lodged by the complainant PW-1 Bhoniram, does not disclose or show presence of PW-4 Sayatabai at the place of occurrence; (II) PW-1 Bhoniram and PW-4 Sayatabai have deposed that PW-2 Jaisingh, said to be another eye-witness had reached the spot, after the present appellants had already fled away from there; (III) PW-2 Jaisingh has stated in the Court that he had reached the spot when the appellants were threatening the complainant and in fact according to him he had heated discussions with one of the accused Devisingh; (IV) the FIR also testifies and is in consonance with the statement of PW-1 Bhoniram and PW-4 Sayatabai to show that PW-2 Jaisingh had reached the spot after the incident had already taken place; (V) there was no actual dispossession of the complainant from the field in question nor there was any interference with the possession of the complainant with regard to agricultural land or his right of enjoyment of the said land was caused by the present appellants; (VI) in this view of the matter, the provisions of S. 3 (1) (v) of the Act, were not made out by the prosecution; (VII) even if the prosecution story is to be believed, in then at best the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the appellants were interested to purchase the land of the complainant at a lesser price than what was being expected by the complainant. This is amply proved from the evidence of PW-1 Bhoniram and PW-4 Sayatabai; (VIII) it is also a matter of record, which stands corroborated by evidence that ultimately the said property was sold by the complainant but to some other persons; (IX) the appellants were said to have been armed with weapons like gun and Lathis. If their intention was to oust the complainant, then they could have done so when they had gone to the spot and could have taken fo