Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surta Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 16 May, 2011
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Surta Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1233/2009)
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section
397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Date of Order :- May 16, 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
Mr.Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioner.
Mrs.Chandra Lekha Parihar, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner-complainant, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 11 for offence under Section 447 IPC, and while convicting the accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3 for offences under Sections 148, 324, 323/149, 325/149 IPC and the accused- respondent Nos.4 to 11 for offences under Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 and 325/149, has granted them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2001 around 11:15 AM, Shiv Chand (PW-16), SHO 2 Police Station Lohawat, recorded the Parcha Bayan of Surta Ram (PW-1), the petitioner-complainant. In his Parcha Bayan, he stated that on 19.05.2001 at about 10:00 PM, while his brother, Ramrakh Ram, was cultivating his field by a tractor and he was standing on the boundary, the accused-respondents came there, armed with various weapons and assaulted his brother. When he rushed to rescue his brother, Shanker Ram, accused-respondent No.3, inflicted Barchi blow on his head and the other accused-persons started beating with lathies. Resultantly, he received number of injuries.
On the basis of the said Parcha Bayan, a formal FIR, FIR No.61/2001, was registered for offences under Sections 447, 148, 307, 323/149 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 447 read with Section 149 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judge framed the charges for offences under Sections 148, 447, 324, 323/149, 325/149 IPC against the accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3, and for offences under Sections 148, 447, 324/149, 323/149, 325/149 IPC against the accused-respondent Nos.4 to 11. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and submitted twenty-one documents. The statements of 3 accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 26.08.2009, the learned Judge acquitted the accused- respondents Nos.2 to 11 for offence under Section 447 IPC; while convicting the accused-respondent Nos.2 and 3 for offences under Sections 148, 324, 323/149, 325/149 IPC and the accused-respondent Nos.4 to 11 for offences under Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 and 325/149, the learned Judge granted them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contented that cross-cases were registered between the complainant and the accused- respondents. While the accused-respondents were charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 447 read with Section 149 IPC, the complainant has been charged for offence under Section 307 IPC, the trial of which is still pending. He has further contended that the observation made by the learned trial court that the land in dispute was co-jointly owned is an incorrect observation as the land which was jointly owned by the brothers was actually divided into four different parts. He has further contended that according to site plan (Ex-D/2), the land, 4 where the assault was made, belongs to the complainant. Therefore, according to him, the accused-persons had trespassed on the said land and had committed the offence under Section 447 IPC. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused-respondents of offence under Section 447 IPC.
On the other hand, Mrs. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that a bare perusal of the site plan (Ex-D/2) clearly shows that the part of the land, where the assault was allegedly made, does not belong to the complainant, but instead belongs to the accused-respondents. Therefore, the accused-respondents cannot be held guilty for having trespassed on their own land. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused- respondents for offence under Section 447 IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and perused the record.
A bare perusal of the site plan (Ex-D/2) clearly reveals that the land, marked as F-2, belongs to the accused-respondents. The portion of the land marked as PQRS has been so marked in order to indicate the place of 5 assault. For, according to the investigating agency, the land marked as PQRS clearly showed that there was track marks of a tractor, the injured was assaulted there, and there was some blood found at the site. However, what is pertinent to be noted is that the portion marked as PQRS clearly falls within the larger area marked as F-2. According to the site plan (Ex-D/2), F-2 belongs to the accused-respondents and does not belong to the petitioner-complainant. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is certainly worthy of acceptance that a person cannot be said to trespass in his own land. Thus, the learned Judge was legally justified in acquitting the accused-respondents of offence under Section 447 IPC.
Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
Manoj solanki