Ramlal and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/01/2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (under (under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Morena in Special Case No. 152/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramlal and others), convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 382 read with 149 of IPC & 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''the Act'') and thereby sentencing each of them to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment, one year rigorous imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- respectively with default clause, the appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under:

(i) That, the complainant, Kanchan Bai Jatav (P.W.1) reached to the Police Station Vijaypur, District Morena (now District Sheopur) on 14/09/2000 at 04.30 pm and lodged a report to the effect that on 13/09/2000 she, her husband, Ramu, Vaijanti Bai and two other labourers, namely; Kashiram and Kripa Bai were cutting the crop of Bajra in her agricultural land bearing Survey No. 763 area 2 Bigha situated in Village Bhaisai. At about 6.00 pm, they cut the entire Bajra crop, at about 6.30 pm., all the accused persons came there in a Mahindra tractor. The accused, Kedar armed with a moujar gun and the other accused armed with lathi, farsa and sickle. The accused Kedar and Shivcharan used the filthy language of CHAMARO KHET SE BAHAR HO JAU NAHI TO TUM SAB LOGON KO MAR KAR ISSIE KHET ME GAD DENGE. The wife of Kedar and Ramkripal''s wife caught hold of her and Vaijainti and threw them on the ground. Kedar and his sons have caught hold of her husband and by dragging ousted him from the filed. All the accused loaded the Barja crop in the tractor and taken away towards the village Bhaisai and thereafter left them there. By demarcation on 05/08/2000, the possession of the aforesaid agricultural field was given to her. The accused prevented her to lodge the report yesterday night, therefore, she could not lodge the report on the same day.

(ii) That, on the basis of aforesaid oral report, an FIR at Crime No. 100/2000 (Exhibit P/1) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 382 342 of IPC and 3(1)(v) of the Act was recorded by Sureshchandra Dohre, Station House Officer (P.W.9) against all the accused persons. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. and

(iii) That, during investigation, the accused have been arrested and seized the looted property from their possession. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed the charge as mentioned hereinabove against all the accused persons. The accused persons denied it and claimed to be tried. The defence of all the accused persons is of false implication on account of rivalry of the land dispute. The seized crop of Bajra belongs to them and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused Kedar stated in his examination that father of Kanchan Bai (P.W.1) sold the land in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/twenty years ago, since then he is in possession of the land. Since the land belongs to scheduled caste person, the same could not be got registered, thereafter Kanchan Bai got her name mutated in the revenue record being legal heir illegally and with an ulterior motive harassing them.

To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/18, the documents on record. The accused persons have not examined any one in their defence.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that the charge has been proved and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.

Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. The so called eye-witnesses are close relatives of the complainant, therefore, they are highly interested witnesses. There was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of the offence alleged against the appellants. P.W.8 Shravanlal, Patwari specifically deposited that the appellants were in possession of the land. The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants, hence, the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from the charge.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited.

In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence available on record.

In the present case, the prosecution examined as many as 05 eye-witnesses, namely; P.W.1 Kanchan Bai, P.W.2 Vaijayanti Bai, P.W.3 Ramu, P.W.4 Kashiram and P.W.5 Kripa Bai. It is needless to say that P.W.1 Kanchan Bai, P.W.2 Vaijanti Bai are wives of Ramu Jatav (P.W.3). Since, they are members of one family, therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinized with great care and caution.

According to Kanchan Bai (P.W.1), she alongwith Vaijayanti, Ramu and two other labourers, namely; Kashiram and Kripa Bai went to cut the crop of Bajra in her agricultural land. At about 6.00 pm, the accused Shivcharan, Kedar, Ramkripal, Rishikesh and Kedar''s wife, daughter and son came there in a tractor-trolley. Kedar was armed with gun while the other accused persons were armed with lathi, farsa and sickle. The accused-ladies caught hold of her and Vaijayanti''s hairs and hands. Kedar put his gun on the chest of Ramu and abused with filthy language and said that the land belongs to them and they are cultivating it. Thereafter, the accused loaded the Bajra crop in the tractor-trolley and taken away. On the next date, she lodged report at the Police Station. She further deposed that the aforesaid land was in the name of her father, Manohardas and five to six years prior, he had died. After death of her father, Manohardas she became the owner and cultivating the land. She admitted in her cross-examination that the land belongs to the accused persons is situated adjoining to her land. She got possession of her land after demarcation and sown the crop of Bajra. On demarcation, there arose a dispute between the accused persons and herself but prior to it there was no dispute with the accused persons/appellants. Similar statements were given by P.W.2 Vaijayanti Bai and P.W.3 Ramu, however, the independent witnesses, P.W.4 Kashiram and P.W.5 Kripa Bai have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile.

From a bare perusal of the testimony of P.W.1 Kanchan Bai, P.W.2 Vaijayanti Bai and P.W.3 Ramu, it is transpired that there was some dispute between the parties in respect of possession and cultivation of the land. Section 3(1)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a Member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with fine.

For securing a conviction u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act, the prosecution, for the first clause is required to show that the accused had wrongfully dispossessed a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises. A wrongful dispossession, in the opinion of this Court, pre-supposes positive and de facto possession. Unless a man is shown to be in actual physical possession of the property, he cannot be dispossessed. The second clause of Section 3(1)(v) of the Act provides that if somebody interferes with the enjoyment of complainant''s rights over any land, premises or water, then he shall be punished. On a fair reading, the words "enjoyment of his rights" must be read in juxtaposition with the words "any land, premises and water", the first clause refers to the personal lands while the second clause relates to any land, premises or water. In fact, the second clause applies to a case where the right to enjoy any land, premises or water has been interfered with. For securing the conviction under the second clause, the prosecution is required to prove that the complainant had some rights and he was enjoying the said rights over any land, premises or water. The second clause would cover a contingency relating to right of easements, right of way and fetching of the water etc. Unless it is proved by the prosecution that the complainant had a right and was enjoying the same, the prosecution would not be entitled to say that because accused did not permit the complainant to take possession of the property which he was allegedly entitled he be convicted.

P.W.1 Kanchan Bai stated that after getting demarcation of the land, she came in possession of the same and cultivating it, however, copies of demarcation proceedings have not been produced and proved by her. Patwari of the village Bhaisai, P.W.8 Shravanlal deposed that Kanchan Bai d/o Manohardas has been recorded as Bhumiswami of the land bearing Survey No. 763 admeasuring 0.40 hectares and in the year 2000, the crop of Bajra was sown. In paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, he stated that the aforesaid land was cultivated by the accused/appellant Shivcharan & others and they have sown the crop of Bajra. The demarcation of the aforesaid land was done in the year 2001. Before the demarcation, the accused/Shivcharan and others were in possession. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8 Shravanlal, therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant, Kanchan Bai was in possession and cultivated the land on the date of the incident, i.e., on 13/09/2000.

P.W.1 Kanchan Bai has also stated that there was no dispute with the accused persons/appellants prior to the incident in question.

On appreciation of the evidence as stated hereinabove, I am unable to upheld the findings of the learned Trial Court convicting the appellants and, therefore, the conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside.

On consideration of the matter in totality, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellants deserves to be and are hereby acquitted from the charge under Sections 147, 148, 382 read with 149 of IPC & 3(1)(v) of the Act. The appellants are on bail and their bail bonds stand discharged.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.