Gurdawar Singh vs Ajaib Singh and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 24774 of 2013

There is a delay of 108 days in filing the present revision. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 108 days in filing the revision is condoned.

Criminal miscellaneous is disposed of.

Main case

This is a revision against the order dated 19.9.2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge FTC (Adhoc) Jalandhar whereby appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 2.11.2011 has been dismissed.

A complaint was filed by the complainant Gurdawar Singh under Sections 427, 447, 148, 149, 380 IPC alleging that the complainant had entered into an agreement of tenancy with regard to 11-1/2 acres of agricultural land situated in Village Surja, Tehsil Phillaur with the owners Suraj Singh and Jaskaran Singh both sons of Jarnail Singh and Jaskaran Singh and Dilbara Singh. The said agreement was for a period of six months. Rs. 80,000/- was received by the owners towards rent from the complainant in the presence of witnesses. On 2.12.2007 at about 11:30 A.M. all the accused forcibly entered into the rented property on tractors armed with deadly weapons. They started using abusive language against the complainant. One Gurjit Singh came on the spot along with the complainant and made a humble request to the accused to settle the dispute. They destroyed the Tauria crop by running the tractors into the same. One electric motor of 10 H.P. was removed by the accused.

Pursuant to the complaint, in preliminary evidence the complainant examined Sukhjinder Singh CW1 and Baljinder Singh CW2. The accused were summoned to face the trial. After framing of the charges the witnesses were produced for cross-examination by the accused. During the trial, the complainant appeared as CW1 and proved the agreement on record (Ex. C1) by which he had entered into a tenancy with Suraj Singh and Jaskaran Singh with respect to 11-1/2 acres of agricultural land. Photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 were placed on record to prove that he has sown Toria and paddy crop. While appearing in cross-examination he admitted that in the agreement (Ex.C1) no khasra number and date has been mentioned. His version that the agreement was executed on the stamp paper stood falsified as the agreement was on simple paper and not on stamp paper. Further in his cross-examination he admitted that he had not specifically named the accused nor mentioned the description of the weapons which the accused were carrying. No electricity bills or water charges bills were produced to prove his position over the land in dispute. Both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the complainant would not prove possession over the disputed land. The evidence of CW3 Gurjit Singh and CW4 Makhan Ram have been rightly described by both the Courts as they were not present on the date of incident. Both the witnesses could not stand the test of judicial scrutiny in cross-examination. CW2 Baljinder Singh did not turn up to face the test of cross-examination. His evidence could not be looked into. The findings recorded by both the Courts that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused and has failed to substantiate the charge against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt does not require any interference as the evidence led by the complainant had been rightly appreciated by both the Courts. No second opinion be formed in a revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The revision is dismissed.