1994 Supreme(MP) 104

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. N. S. CHOUHAN, D. K. JAIN
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
VISHAL SINGH - Respondents
CRI. REF. 2 Of 1993
Decided On : 02/03/1994

The statutory presumption attaching to the entries in revenue records can be rebutted by evidence of actual possession.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 307, 147, 148, I.P.C. - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 117 - LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959, SECTION 117 - Held, that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the presumptive value of aforesaid land records which show the members of appellant side as in possession as recorded owners of the disputed lands. However, the fact remains that admittedly the grants of Pattas in this behalf to the members of the accused party is under challenge in a pending revenue case initiated by Neksai and his party men. Emphasis was laid on the fact that prosecution failed to put any question to Patwari of the village, Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 23) on the point of actual possession over the disputed fields. This, in our opinion, is inconsequential as the Patwari could not have stated any facts contrary to the revenue records which show the members of the accused party in possession.

Fact of the Case:

Residents of village Mendwara, Police Station Jatara, District tikmagarh were sharoply divided into two camps, one led by absconding accused Ranmat Singh and the other headed by Neksai (P. W. 20 ). The bone of contention which led to these quadruple murders was rivals claims for possession over the pasture land (Gochar) of the village. In the year 1984 Pattas were gratned in favor of Moti, Kundan, Ranmat Singh, Ramsingh, Phulsing, Siyaram, Kalloo Sore, Bhagwandas, Ramkali wife of Kishan etc. of appellants' camp. The other side challenged these allotments and the matter was sub judice on the date of incident. These facts are not in dispute. Members of Neksai's camp claimed that they were in actual possession of the said land notwithstanding the grant of pattas to others and that is why they had challenged the said grants. On 25-6-1990,at day break, i. e. 6. 30 a. m. , appellants and four absconding accused, namely, Ranmat Singh, Motilal, Kundan Singh and Chatur Khangar were cultivating the said pasture lands. Ranmat Singh, Ramsingh Vishal Singh, Kapoor Singh Sitaram, Veeren alias Virendra Singh were armed with guns, Siyaram was armed with a farce, Kishanlal was having an axe and the rest of them were armed with lathis. Neksai (P. W. 20) with his partymen Hardas (deceased), Muratsingh (deceased) his wife shantibai (deceased), Chandrabhansingh (deceased), Devidas, Omprakash, Mahipat, Mayaram, Rambhagat (P. Ws. 3 to 7), Bithallo alias Balwan (P. W. 11 ). Raghuvir (P. W. 22) and some others went there to protest which triggered the feud resulting in on the spot death of Murat Singh, his wife Shantibai, Chandrabhansingh and Hardas by fire-arm injuries. Rambagas, Devidas were also injured by fire-arm.

Finding of the Court:

Considering the probabilities of the case the claim of the prosecution witness that the disputed lands notwithstanding he entries in the revenue records to the contrary were in fact in their possession and the accused party had gone there to take forcible possession was rightly accepted to be true. In this view of the matter the finding of the learned trial Judge that statutory presumption attaching to the aforesaid entries in revenue records stood rebutted needs no interference.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has produced any documentary evidence to rebut the presumptive value of aforesaid land records which show the members of appellant side as in possession as recorded owners of the disputed lands? 2. Whether the prosecution failed to put any question to Patwari of the village, Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 23) on the point of actual possession over the disputed fields?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the presumptive value of aforesaid land records which show the members of appellant side as in possession as recorded owners of the disputed lands. 2. The prosecution failed to put any question to Patwari of the village, Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 23) on the point of actual possession over the disputed fields. This, in our opinion, is inconsequential as the Patwari could not have stated any facts contrary to the revenue records which show the members of the accused party in possession.

Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 973/93 is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants Vishal Singh and Ram Singh under Section 302, I. P. C. is upheld. Both of them are sentenced to life imprisonment. Their conviction under Section 148, I. P. C. and R. I. for two years and conviction under Section 307/149, I. P. C. and sentences of 7years each is also upheld. In view of their conviction under Section 148, I. P. C. they could not also have been convicted under Section 147, I. P. C. and, therefore, their conviction under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentence of one year R. I. are hereby set aside. Cr. A. No. 1010/93 is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant Viran alias Virendra Singh under Section 148, 302/149 and 307/149, I. P. C. and sentences of 2 years R. I. life imprisonment, and 7 years R. I. respectively are hereby confirmed. His conviction under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentences of one year R. I. is hereby set aside. Rest of the appellants, namely Sitaram, Gillu alias Bhagwandas, Sunnu, Prakash alias Omprakash, Kallu and Rajju alias Virendra Singh are acquitted of all the charges. Cr. A. No. 1033/93 is allowed. Convictions of all the appellants, namely Siyaram, Phool Singh, Kapura Singh and Pappu alias Ramkishore under Sections 147/148, 302, 149 and 307/149. I. P. C. and sentence of one year, two years, life imprisonment, and seven years R. I. respectively are hereby set aside.