HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 459/1995 SB: Hoa?ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhaawar APPELLANT Khammaa s/o Hagruram Versus RESPONDBNT State of Madhya Pradesh(Now CG) JUDGMENT Post forjudgment on^.09.2009 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ",f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 459/1995 SB: Hoxa^ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhaawar APPELLANT Khaminaa s/o Hagniram. aged 39 years, occupation cultivation, resident of viUage Gotidola^ Charama, Thaaa CharaDia, District Bastar (MP)(Now CG) p^" IRESPQNDJBNT Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now CG) Appearance: Shri Sarafaraj Khan, counsel for fhe appellaat. Shri U.K.S.Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (DeHvered on<^ .09.2009) R.L.Jhanwar,J. This Criinmal Appeal is du-ected agamst fhe judgment of couviction asid order of sentence dated 13th March, 1995 delivered in Special Sessions Trial No.22/91, whereby, fhe leanied Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted fh.e appeUant under Sectipn 447 of the IPC rcad with Section 3 (1) (v) of Scheduled Castes aad Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (heremafter referred to as 'fhe Act5) aad sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 nionths aad to pay a fiae of Rs.200/-, in default of payment offine to further undergo R.I. for 1 nionfh.. The case of tlie prosecution ia brief is fhat fh.e complaiaant- Ankaluram is owner aad ia possession of five acres of laad, bearing Khasra No. l/l-cF> in viUage Goti Tola. He had cultivated Kutki on the said laad, The crop started growiag. The appeUant- Khajnmaii, Raghunafh and Cheduram came with common Cr. App. 459/1995 u mtention to plough fhe field ofAnkaluram and forcefuUy ploughed it wifh a toractor aad ftiereby, iasulted aad uitimidated hiai. The coinplaiaaat belougs to Scheduled Caste a-ad the accused persons are 'Sahu' by caste. Ankaluram iminediately lodged a report in fhe PoUce Station. FJ,R. was registered aad iavestigation started. Statenients of couiplaiaaiit aad ofher persons were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, and dociiments were seized, After conipletion of the iavestigation charge sheet was filed before fhe Special Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur. The Special Sessious Judge franied charges agamst fhe appeUaat- KhainHiari^ Raghunafh aad Cheduram, read over aad explamed it to fhein. They abjured fhe guUt aad their defence was fhat fhe coinplain.ant - Ankaluram had unlawfuUy occupied fheir laad, which was actually of their possession. The learaed Special Sessions Judge, after appreciation ofthe evidence available on record and hearing fhe coiinsel for the respective parties, convicted aad sentenced fhe appeUant as above aad acquitted the accused Raghunafh. and Cheduraai. I have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties at length aad have perused the record of the Sessions Trial. Section 441 ofthe I.P.C, reads as under : 442. Crirninal trespciss,- Whoever enters into or uponproperty in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfizlly remains there with intent thereby to intirmdate, insult or annoy any suchperson, or withinieni to commit an offence, is said to commii s ariminal trespasss\ Section 447 offhe I.RC. reads as under : 447. Punishment for criminal trespass" Whoever commits crirmnal trespass shall be punished with imprisonmeni of either .^^m^ c- ^ Cr. App. 459/1995 description for a term which may extend to three months, withfine or which may exf.end iofive hzindred rupees, or with both, Sectiou 3 (1) (v) offhe Act reads as under : Sea3, Punishment for offences of atroaties' (1) Whoever, not being a member ofa Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,' (v) wrongfzilly dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribefrom his land or prermses or interferes with the enjoyment ofhis rights over any land, premises orwater, shall be punishable with imprisomnent for a tenn which shall not be less than six nwnths but which may extend tofive years and ivithflne, In fhis context, it is clear froni fhe stateraent of Ankaluraoi fhat he had possession of fhe land of 5 acres bearing Khasra No, 1/1-c[) ia vUlage- Goti Tola and he had sown the crop Kutki on fhe said laad. The accused persons forcefully ploughed the field aad taken over fhe possession aad fhreatened the coinplaiaaat to crush hiin under fhe tractor. In fhis regard F.I.R. Ex, P/2 was lodged. K.K.Paadey (PW-5) stated that he prepared tiie inap of fhe land, Ex.P/3 aad found fhat on 20 dismal oflaad, Chedurain had taken illegal and forcefal possession. He stated fhat accordiag to Ex.P/4, ia fhe year 1991, fhe disputed land was in flie owuership aad ia possession of Ankaluram. Accordiag to docuraents Ex.Dl, D2, D3, D4 aad D5, presented by fhe accused persons ia defence, Cheduraui was fhe owner of 1.70 acres oflaad bearing Khasra No. 1/1~^. Therefore, it is clear froni fhe evidence of K,K.Pandey(PW-5) and Ankaluram (PW-1) fhat 5 acres oflaad bearing Khasra No. l/ 1 ^ had ia possession of Ankaluram. This is corroborated by the evidence of Ramesh (PW-2), who has also stated fhat fhe coinplainaat- Aukalurani had sown Kutki aiid tlie appeUaiit came aad forcefuUy ploughed fhe field wifh tractor. .yy^ /t,.-&^ "^ •(^ ''.:;^r^ "<%5 -<-: ^' .^ Cr. App. 459/1995 Even if, ofherwise the argunient is believed that Ankaluraia had forcefziUy taken over fhe possession offhe laiid of 0.67 disinal, bearing Khasra No. 1/1, as stated by K.K.Pandey (PW-5), Patwari, fhe accused persons do not have right to plough the crop, sown by Ankaluram aad to ruin it. The accused persons should have approached for legal reniedy. Frora fhe above discussion, it is proved fhat fhe coiaplainant- Ankalurani belongs to Scheduled Caste aad fhe fact is also proved fhat he had possession over the disputed laad aad he had sown Kutki on fhe said laad at fhe time of iacident aad appeUaiit ruiaed it by ploughiag tractor. So far as delay ui lodgiag ftie F.I.R, is concemed, fhe iacident is of 25.7,1991 and fhe report has been lodged on 4.8.1991. The complainaat obtamed fhe documents on 2.8.1991 tlirough Paiwari aad fhereafter, lodged fhe report. Therefore, it caanotbe said to be delay in lodging fhe F.I.R. The learaed Special Judge had not committed aay error of law ia beUeviag th.at fhe disputed laad was ia possession of Ankaluram, who had sown Kutki aad ttie appeUaiit ruined ftie crop by ploughiag it wifh a tractor. This fact is corroborated by the statements of Ramesh(PW-2) and K.K.Pandey(PW-S). In my opiaion, the leamed Special Judge has righUy reached to fhe conclusion aiid recorded a finding, beUevuig fhe statenients of tliose witaesses aad convicted aad sentenced the appeUaat for com-mission of fhe offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC read with Section 3 (1) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 as above. There is no iUegality or mfinnity m fhe order passed the Special Judge. In tiie result, the appeal has no merits. The same deserves to be aad is accordiiigly disinissed. j R.L. Jhanwar Judge sunita