- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.576/2008 (Babulal Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr.) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER::-04-09-2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr.C.M.Verma,for the petitioner Mr.B.K.Sharma, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: This revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Court of SC/ST (PA) Act Cases, Sikar in Case No.102/2005 (State vs. Rameshwarlal) acquitting the accused respondent of the offence under section 447 IPC read with Section 3(1)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short the Act). For the disposal of this revision petition the necessary facts are that petitioner Babulal lodged a written report Ex.P2 at Police Station, Ringus with the averments that in relation to a land bearing Khasra No.674 measuring 0.25 Hectares and the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.675 measuring 3.11 Hectares is situated in Village Chomu - 2 - Purohitan, Tehsil, Shri Madhopur. In relation to above land, in a civil suit by temporary injunction accused respondent was restrained. Inspite of above stay order when the complainant and his family members reached on the field on 6.5.2005, they found Bhakta Ram and Rameshwar were present on the field. The accused were asked not to throw stones in their field, but they said that they will make construction on the field. It is also averred that complainant asked them not to do construction on the field, but the accused respondent did not agree to their request and started abusing the complainant and his family members. On hearing the noise, neighbourers of the field came there and settled the matter. On the above report, F.I.R. No.80/2005 (Ex.P3) was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Ringus under section 447 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(V) of the Act. Charges were framed against the accused respondent. In all 13 witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case and 23 documents were tendered in evidence. The accused respondent in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was falsely involved in the case. The learned trial court after hearing both sides vide its judgment dated 5.4.2008 acquitted the accused respondent of the charges levelled against him. Hence this revision petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has failed to consider the - 3 - evidence brought on record and in fact has misread the evidence. It is further contended that the documents in this case would show the possession of the disputed land is of the complainant but the trial court has not properly considered the documentary evidence in this case. It is contended that the accused respondent abused them at public place, therefore, the accused respondent was liable to be convicted under section 447 I.P.C. and also under section 3(1)(V) of the Act. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that reasoned judgment has been passed by the learned trial court and finding insufficient evidence in the case gave benefit of doubt to the accused respondent and acquitted him. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. It is to be seen that in the instant case, the First Information Report lodged in the Police Station is after due deliberation as the same was lodged after six days of the incident. It further appears that there appears no mention of any person, who had seen the incident though it is mentioned in the First Information Report that the neighbourers came there at the spot. It further appears that 4 accused persons were named in the First Information Report, but after investigation charge-sheet has been filed only against the accused respondent Rameshwarlal. The documents in the case - 4 - on perusal, no where shows that the accused respondent had put the stones in the disputed field. In relation to section 447 I.P.C. the prosecution is required to prove that trespass was made on a piece of land, which was of the complainant. The complainant in his cross examination has admitted that in 2005 the land was sold to one Ram Chandra. In relation to hurling of abuses at public place, there should be reliable evidence. In the instant case, it has not been established that accused had trespassed the land of the complainant, then in the above circumstances, it is difficult to assume that accused hurled filthy language at the public place with the intention to insult the complainant. In the investigation also, this part has not been found established. In this case, the statements of the witnesses are contradictory to each other in relation to the manner in which the incident had taken place. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile in the case. The learned trial court has in detail discussed the evidence brought on record. I have also perused the evidence, which has come on record. I do not find that the learned trial court committed illegality while recording finding of acquittal against the accused respondent. The finding recorded by the learned trial court appears to be reasonable, just and proper. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the trial court has misread the evidence is not liable to be accepted. The position of law is also settled on the point that - 5 - lightly the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below should not be disturbed unless it is found that the court has misread the evidence or the court has completely ignored the material available on record. It is also settled position of law that even if two views are possible in a case on appreciation of evidence, then preference is to be given to the view taken by the trial court. In view of foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-