Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to provide evidence of abuse or trespass; mere possession and verbal disputes do not fulfill that burden.

JUDGMENT :

DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved with the judgment and sentenced passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Mandala in Special Case No. 18/2006 dated 7-12-2006 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294 , 323, 379 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 6 months respectively with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainant Kalicharan is the owner of land bearing Survey No.475, 477 and 479. The land Survey No. 475 ad-measuring 0.20 hectare, Narayandas and Gulai have tress passed in the area of 0.06 hectare and Sumran has tress passed over 0.02 hectare. In this land they are having the possession. The report was made before the Police Station, AJK Mandala on 10.7.2002 and 14.3.2005 and the compromise was arrived on 9.11.2005. The complainant's wife Somwati bai, son Pappu, daughter Usha Bai went to reap the paddy crop then the appellant Sumran Yadav , Gulau Yadav stopped them from reaping crop. His son Pappu returned from the field and informed him. On that he along with the Up- Sarpanch Riyaz Khan (PW/2) reached on the field Santram, Jariya, Pappu Sahu also reached on the spot. He asked to the accused persons why they are objecting to reap the crop. The accused persons started abusing him and the persons present there were consoling the accused persons. The appellant Nansa Bai assaulted the complainant Kalicharan with fists on his face. The complainant filed the written complaint to SHO SC/ST Kalyan Thana, Mandla on that enquiry was conducted by police authorities. After preliminary enquiry the case was registered as crime No. 2/2006 under Section 447 , 294/34 and 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 on 19.1.2006. After investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The Trial court framed the charges under Section 294 , 447, 223, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The appellants have denied the charges and prayed for trial after recording the prosecution witnesses the accused persons were examined. Accused persons have taken defence that they have not tress passed on the land of the complainant they were having the possession over the disputed land since long time. Trial court after hearing the parties have passed the judgment and convicted and sentenced the appellants as in para 1 of the judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellants on the caste basis, abuses the complainant or his family members but after that trial court has convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant and his witnesses. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that any demarcation was done as per the law and the possession of appellants was found over the agricultural land of the complainant or they were having forceful possession over the disputed land and argued that the complainant has lodged criminal prosecution to obtain the possession of the appellants' agricultural land and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the victim was entitled for the possession over the suit land. Thus, trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants and submitted that appellants