[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 215/2008 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ATTAR KHAN Date: 06.08.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 18/2004, whereby accused-respondent Attar Khan has been acquitted from the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2003, Amichand, the complainant submitted a written report at Police Station Tapukada stating therein that he had done measurement of the field as per the orders of the Collector and was given possession of the land by the Collector. He has grown the crop of 'Guwar' and 'Bajra' in the field. On 12.08.2003 Attar Khan ploughed his field along with his two sons and wife and threatened him. On the basis of the above report, FIR No. 185/2003 was registered at Police Station Tapukada and [2] investigation commenced. After investigation, challan was filed before the Court and charges for the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act were framed against the accused-respondent, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After hearing rival submissions of the respective parties, the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar vide its impugned judgment dated 24.10.2007 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2007, the present criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the State on the ground that the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that from the evidence of Tehsildar PW1 and Chhagan PW6, it is clear that Amichand, the complainant was given possession of Khasra No. 246 on 17.07.2003 and the crop was cultivated by him. It is also stated that the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW6 and PW7 have supported the story of the prosecution but the statements of the prosecution witnesses have not rightly been appreciated by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State and carefully [3] gone through the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the trial Court. It appears that the complainant has not mentioned the number of the tractor and also not able to show that before handing over the possession to the complainant any public notice was issued or the public was informed by beating drum or any notice was given to accused Attar Khan. Further as per the statement of witness Dharam Singh Saini, who has entered mutation in the name of complainant Amichand on 24.10.2002, he has clearly stated that prior to this date Attar Khan was in possession of the field in question. Thus the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the accused-respondent and the prosecution witnesses have not supported the complainant's case, on the contrary, as per the statements of the witnesses and the material available on the record, it was found that on 17.07.2003 accused-respondent Attar Khan was in possession of the land in question and he was not removed after following due process of law. Hence, since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt, therefore giving benefit of doubt he has rightly been acquitted from the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide impugned judgment dated 24.10.2007. [4] This Court do not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar and the same requires no interference. Consequently, the criminal leave to appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/