Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.47732 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 Date of decision 25.10.2010. Harbans Lal ...... Petitioner. versus Jaswant Singh and others ......... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. Criminal Misc. No.47732 of 2008 There is a delay of 42 days ion filing the revision petition. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. Main case. Petitioner-complainant has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 7.5.2008 vide which the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court in a case FIR No.72 dated 2.5.2006 under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 120-B, 451, 427 and 506 of the Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 2 Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) lodged by him. It has been alleged by the complainant that he is a scheduled caste and had purchased 2 kanals 18 marlas, 6 Sarsahis of land on Kotkapura – Moga road in the area of village Ghania from Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 22.2.2006 and a petrol pump was installed in that land in the name of his daughter Sanjogta. On 22.4.2006 he and his son Dhiraj Kumar were constructing a room in the said land which was being constructed by mason Thana Singh and 5-6 labourers were also working there. At about 3.00 P.M. retired Patwari Dalip Singh alongwith his son whose name was not known to him and Kuldip Kaur (accused) came there. Dalip Singh raised a lalkara by uttering derogatory words about his caste and objected the raising of construction of the said room in his land. He also told his co-accused Kuldip Kaur by uttering derogatory words about his caste that the complainant party was raising construction in their land and the walls of the rooms should be dismantled. Consequently, Kuldip Kaur dismantled the walls with her hands. When he and his son Dhiraj Kumar told the accused that they were raising construction in their land, Kuldip Kaur also uttered derogatory words about their caste. Dalip Singh and his son had been exhorting Kuldip Kaur. They also threatened him with death and left the place. The complainant has also stated that till today (i.e. 2.5.2006) the accused were making promise to raise their dismantled construction and that is why they did not take any action. SI Nek Singh made his endorsement Ex.PA/1 upon Ex.P.A. and formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered. Then he submitted case file to PW-3 DSP Randhir Singh Uppal, on the same day, who reached the plot at 9 P.M. prepared rough site plan Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 3 Ex.PB and recorded statements of the witnesses. The scene was got photographed and the accused were formally arrested on 26.5.2006. After completing necessary formalities of the investigation, the accused were challaned. After hearing both the parties, a charge under Section 3 (x) of the Act and under Section 120-B, 451, 427, 506 of the IPC was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW-1 Harbans Lal complainant, PW-2 Thana Singh, PW-3 DSP Randhir Singh Uppal, PW-4 Hargobind Singh, Reader of Naib Tehsildar, PW-5 Pawan Kumar Registration Clerk, PW-6 HC Ashok Kumar, PW-7 SI Nek Singh and then closed its evidence. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed themselves to be innocent. Kuldip Kaur also stated that the complainant had entered into an agreement to purchased the land but did not stick to it and she enhanced the price of the land as a result of which he go annoyed and trespassed into more land and implicated here in this false case. She also stated that her relatives were not present at the spot and the police under the influence of the complainant had challaned them. Dalip Singh accused stated that he is an old man with weak eye sight and hard of hearing. He also stated that he is an attesting witness of the agreement. He has further stated that Kuldip Kaur and her husband are related to him and that when the complainant did not stick to the terms of the agreement, he bore a grudge against his relatives and implicated him Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 4 and his son in a false case alongwith Kuldip Kaur and that he was not present at that time. Similar is the statement of Jaswant Singh accused. In defence, they examined DW-1 Balaur Singh and DW-2 Kulwinder Singh. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 7.5.2008. Feeling dis-satisfied, the complainant-petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased two kanals one bigha of land and installed petrol pump in the name of his daughter Sanjogta on 22.4.2006. The complainant along with his son Dhiraj Kumar constructed the room in the said land. The accused have uttered derogatory words about his caste and the walls were dismantled. This version is supported by all the prosecution witnesses and in spite of that the trial Court has acquitted the accused. The trial Court has acquitted the respondent relying upon the judgment which is not applicable in the present case. The trial Court has not applied its mind judicially. The prosecution version is most natural. The trial Court has wrongly relied upon the defence evidence, which is not sufficient to disprove the case of the complainant. So, prayer has been made for acceptance of the revision petition. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 5 Thana Singh, mason, who has admitted in the cross-examination that room was being constructed outside the boundary wall. It has also been observed by the trial Court that even in the site plan, Deputy Superintendent of Police has shown the construction of whole of the room outside the boundary wall i.e. on the land of complainant. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant could raise the construction within the area he has purchased. He has no right to raise construction in the land which was not purchased by him. So, it seems that there is a dispute regarding the land and in those circumstances the present case has been registered against the accused including a lady family member. The trial Court has rightly appreciated whole of the evidence on the file. The counsel for the applicant-complainant could not point out any evidence of the trial Court which has been misread and misinterpreted by the trial Court. So, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 25, 2010. sv. Criminal Revision No.2163 of 2008 6