State of M.P. vs Subhash and Others

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been filed u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed by Special Judge, Bhind, in Special S.T. No. 112/06 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323/34, 506 Part II/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The facts in brief are that on 2.8.2006 Ashabai (PW-1) and Bishunlal (PW-3) visited their agricultural field. They saw that respondents are cultivating the land. When they objected, respondents abused them in the name of caste and thereafter the respondents pulled down Ashabai and gave beating to her. The incident was witnessed by Ramsevak and Abhishekh. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 323/34, 506 Part II/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After appreciating the evidence and material, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents. Being aggrieved, the appellant/State has preferred this appeal.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in disbelieving the testimony of Ashabai (PW-1) which is fully corroborated by Bishunlal (PW-3) and Abhishekh (PW-2). Hence, prayed that respondents be convicted.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of learned trial Court.

I have perused the record of trial Court.

Ashabai (PW-1) deposed that when she reached the agricultural field alongwith her father, accused persons were cultivating the land with their tractor. They abused in the name of caste. When she and her father stood in front of the tractor, Pradeep slapped her and pushed her. Bishunlal (PW-3), father of Ashabai, and Abhishekh (PW-2) have corroborated the statement of Ashabai in their chief examination, however, Ramsevak (PW-5) does not support the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile.

Abhishekh Singh (PW-2) in his cross-examination has admitted that his agricultural field is not situated near the agricultural field of Bishunlal. In para 6 and 7 there are omissions of the material fact in his case diary statement, therefore, his testimony has rightly been disbelieved.

Ashabai (PW-1) has admitted in para 7 of her cross-examination that her father was never in possession of the land because the accused persons did not allow that. In para 5, she further admitted that litigation was pending in the Tahsil Court regarding the land. Bishunlal (PW-3) has admitted in para 5 that due to the litigation enmity between him and accused persons is going on. In para 6 he admitted that the accused persons are cultivating the land for about 10 years. Though he has denied that on the basis of possession Subhash has been declared Bhumiswami of the land and his name has been mutated, however, from Ex. D/7, it appears that name of Subhash has been directed to be recorded as Bhumiswami.

The learned trial Court in para 10 of the judgment has recorded a finding that on the date of alleged incident the accused Subhash was Bhumiswami of the land. Considering the testimony of Asha (PW-1) and Bishunlal (PW-3) and the fact that accused persons were in possession of the land, on account of which the incident alleged to have taken place, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned finding of learned trial Court. The appeal is devoid of any merits and it is hereby dismissed.