Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.7 of 2002 =========================================================== Basanti Devi, wife of Farman Mochi, resident of village-Gowabari, P.S.-Pothia, District-Kishanganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Md. Rafique son of Dhanwar Ali. 2. Chilu son of Dhanwar Ali. 3. Mainuddin son of Dhanwar Ali All resident of village-Gowabari, P.S.-Pothia, District-Kishanganj. 4. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Meena Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, APP. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-12-2012 This appeal against acquittal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the order dated 22.8.2002 passed in S.L.A. No. 23 of 2002 granting special leave to appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.4.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Purnea, in Sessions Trial No. 432/1998/27/1998, by which, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Md. Rafique, Chilu and Mainuddin have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under [STATUTE] and Section 3(i)(iv) & (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had filed a complaint in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj on 9.12.1996 with respect to an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 6.12.1996 at about 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2002 dt.06-12-2012 2 / 6 2 p.m. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint is that the family members of the complainant were in possession of the land mentioned in the schedule of the complaint since last 15 years on the strength of red card issued in the name of complainant’s son, namely, Mister Mochi. The complainant was regularly paying rent to the Government. The complainant’s son had gone outside in order to earn his livelihood and finding the complainant alone with her minor children, the accused persons who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the present appeal wanted to take forcible possession of the land in question. They conspired together to oust the complainant from the village. The complainant has further alleged that with great difficulty she had sown “Tisi” on the land in question, the accused persons had committed atrocities on her even at the time of sowing of the “Tisi” crop and they tried to forbid her from doing so. On 6.12.1996 at about 3 p.m., the accused persons came to the house of the complainant and threatened her not to go upon the land in future, otherwise, she and her entire family would be burnt alive and killed by setting her house on fire in the night. They also told that the “Tisi” crop sown by her would be harvested by them. The complainant on account of fear went inside the house and saved her life. The complainant has further alleged that two days ago a bullock belonging to her was killed near dam. She suspected that the accused persons might be instrumental in killing her bullock or getting it killed. Lastly, it is alleged that the accused persons were adamant to dispossess the complainant of her land finding her weak, helpless and a lone harizan in the village. After due inquiry, the learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused persons to appear and face trial. Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of sessions by the learned C.J.M., Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2002 dt.06-12-2012 3 / 6 3 Kishanganj. The Special Judge framed charge under [STATUTE] as well as Section 3(i) (iv) & (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, in all, on behalf of the prosecution three witnesses including the appellant were examined. Out of them, P.W. 1 Basanti Devi is the complainant herself. While being examined in court in her examination-in-chief, the complainant has stated that the land in question came to her possession on the basis of a red card issued in her name. She has further stated that she is paying the rent to the Government and she is coming in possession of the land for the last 15 years. She has further stated that on the relevant date and time of occurrence, the accused persons named in the complaint along with 4-5 others unknown came to her house and told that they would harvest the “Tisi” crop. She has also stated that the accused persons intend to dispossess her from the land in question. In cross-examination, she has stated that she can submit the red card and rent receipts with respect to the land in question in court. She has denied the allegation that she has falsely deposed against the accused persons. I find that the complainant has alleged in the complaint that red card was issued in the name of her son, namely, Mister Mochi. However, while being cross-examined in court, she states that the red card on the strength of which, she came in possession over the land in question was issued in her own name. The prosecution has failed to produce the red card or rent receipts of the land in question in course of trial. The prosecution has also failed to examine Mister Mochi. There is no explanation as to why he has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thus, what is important from her deposition is that the appellant, while being examined in court, has not uttered a word regarding any act of mischief by the Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.7 of 2002 dt.06-12-2012 4 / 6 4 accused persons. She has given a complete go-bye to the story narrated in the complaint regarding killing of bullock belonging to her two days prior to the alleg

Applicable IPC Section: 429

Statute Text:
Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief by killing poisoning maiming or rendering useless any elephant, camel, horse, etc., whatever may be its value or any other animal of the value of 50 rupees or upwards. Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, of any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.