Prosecution must prove ownership and possession in land disputes beyond reasonable doubt; failure leads to acquittal.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment, conviction and sentence dated 22.12.1997 directed by the learned Special Judge under SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore in Special Case No.511 of 1997 whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under S.3(1)(iv) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred to as the "Special Act") and S.294 of IPC and sentenced with two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000 - /-, default sentence was also granted.

2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 25.3.1981 the complainant Nandram (PW 1) was allotted a plot having size 50 x 30 sqft. by Panchayat in sum of Rs.225/- and a receipt Ext. P4 was issued by the Panchayat and possession of that land was given to the complainant Nandram. On 10.10.1996, at about 11.00 a.m., Nandram and his daughter - in - law Lalita Bai (PW 2) were present on that land because the complainant Nandram was using that land as khala (a place where rippen crops are kept for its preparation and to get grains). The appellant came to the spot and started removing the fencing of that plot. When the complainant Nadram objected then the appellant told that he had a patta of that land and also he told obscene words to Lalita Bai and he expressed a sentence of insult towards the complainant on the basis of caste. The complainant Nadram went to Sarpanch Tulsiram (PW 3) and informed about the incident and thereafter, he had lodged an FIR Ext. P1 at Police Station Jawar. The charge sheet was filed after due investigation before the Special Judge.

3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was in possession of that land since long and he did not commit an act of encroachment on that land on the given date. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

4. The learned Special Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of S.352 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Special Act but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The present case is an appeal and therefore, on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant re - appreciation of the evidence can be done. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution the following questions are to be considered by this Court. Firstly, whether the complainant was the owner of the land on the date of the incident having its possession? Secondly, as to whether the complainant was forcefully dispossessed from the land by the appellant ? Thirdly, whether the appellant expressed obscene words at the time of the incident ? Fourthly, whether the place of incident was a public place and fifthly, whether any annoyance was caused to any person after hearing such words ? In the appeal there is no need to discuss an issue that a complainant was of scheduled caste because in the statement under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant has admitted that he knew that the complainant was a dhobi by caste and therefore, he was a member of the scheduled caste.

7. For the sake of brevity, first two incidents are to be considered simultaneously. Nandram (PW 1) and Lalita Bai (PW 2) have stated that the land in dispute was given by the Panchayat to him and a receipt of Rs.225/- was issued by the Sarpanch on 25.3.1981 for that land. Consequently, he received a certificate Ext. P2 from the Panchayat. In support of that certificate Ext. P2 Sarpanch (PW 3) was examined. He pro