IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ----

Present: Dr. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner against the findings recorded by both the Courts below wherein the petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.11.2024.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present revision petition are that an application was moved by the complainant Nirmal Singh on the basis of which the present FIR No.18 dated 18.12.2014, under Sections 447 and 427 IPC at Police Station NRI, Hoshiarpur was registered. The complainant alleged in his complaint that accused Kamaljit Singh has illegally occupied the land of the complainant measuring 3 kanal 10 marlas, comprising in khasra No.15//20 measuring 7 kanal 12 marlas, detailed in the revenue record produced by the complainant. Darshan Singh had sold the said land measuring 3 kanal 10 marlas to accused/ respondent No.2 Kamaljit Singh on 30.07.2012, which was in his possession. The complainant had planted Eucalyptus trees over his land, which had been uprooted by the accused, causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was alleged that respondent No.2 not only occupied the said land of Darshan Singh but also occupied 3 kanal 10 marlas of land belonging to the complainant. The said land was partitioned on 15.06.1957, which was claimed by the complainant to be his ancestral property. They also took the accused before the panchayat, but in vain. Further apprehension was that another plot of land measuring 10 marlas was also intended to be illegally occupied by respondent No.2. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, investigation was carried out. During investigation, it was found that respondent No.2 had occupied the land of the complainant by forcibly ploughing the same. FIR was registered. Accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The tractor alleged to have been used in the occurrence was taken into police possession. After completion of all the formalities, challan was presented before the Court.

3. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Swaran Singh, PW2 Harnam Singh, PW3 ASI Rakesh Kumar, PW4 Amarjit Kaur (Jr. Assistant), PW5 Darshan Chand, PW6 Jog Raj, Patwari, PW7 Inspector Satnam Singh, PW8 Avtar Singh, PW9 Nirma, Singh, PW10 Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Assistant and PWs HC Sukhwinder Singh, MHC Gulshan Kumar and SI Balwinder Singh were given up.

5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which, all incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.

6. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court found the same to be woefully insufficient to convict the accused who was accordingly acquitted of the offences for which he had been charge-sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 10.11.2017.

7. Aggrieved of the said decision, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.11.2024. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present Revision Petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below wrongly acquitted the accused/ respondent No.2 and did not take notice of the fact that respondent no.2 had not proved the ownership or possession over the land in question. The prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated. Statement of PW