1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.663/2006 (Trilok Vs. State & Others) Date of order : 02.05.2007 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor. By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 17.4.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railmagara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.248/2000 whereby the non-petitioners were acquitted from the charges levelled against them for offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. According to the brief facts of the case on 2.5.2000, the petitioner-complainant filed an FIR before Police Station Kunwaria, in which it was alleged that he is in possession of the land situated in Village Bamnia for last 20 years which is surrounded from all sides by cactus (thor) fence and 2 the non-petitioners are trying to dispossess him and they are going to take possession of the said land. Further it was alleged by the complainant that non- petitioners entered in his agricultural field from western side and they destroyed the cactus (thor) fencing and due to their illegal action, he suffered loss of more than Rs.500/-. It was further alleged that two witnesses namely Kajod and Kalu are eye witnesses of the said incident. Upon this complaint, FIR No.68/2000 was registered for offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. After usual investigation challan was filed against the non-petitioner and after recording plea, the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove the prosecution case. Seven witnesses were examined from the side of prosecution and eight documents were exhibited. In rebuttal, the statement of DW-1 Tulsiram was recorded and documents; Ex.D/1 – police statement of Kajod and; Ex.D/2 the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, were exhibited. Learned trial Court after full-fledged trial acquitted the non-petitioners for offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned trial court has committed error while not appreciating the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Further, it is argued that the 3 prosecution has proved its case with regard to offence under Section 447 I.P.C. while adducing oral evidence of PW-1 Kajod and other circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court has committed an error while acquitting the non-petitioners from offence under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the relevant record produced before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, there is no error in the impugned judgment dated 17.4.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railmagara, District Rajsamand because according to the finding given by learned trial Court, the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to ownership of the disputed land whereas the non- petitioners have produced the certified copy of the stay order passed in their favour and it is proved before the Court that there was stay in their favour passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Further, the learned trial Court has observed that there is major contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment that PW-4 Rupa has turned hostile and PW-5 Lehru has made statement before the Court that he heard that occurrence took place with regard to cutting of cactus (thor) fencing but who has cut 4 'thor' has not been disclosed by him. Likewise, there is material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 Kajod upon which the learned trial Court has discredited his evidence. In my opinion, the finding given by learned trial Court is based upon sound reasons, which does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun