Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Samples of the solutions were kept in separate bottles and sealed. A positive report (Ex.P-27) from the Forensic Science Laboratory was also received regarding hand wash and pant pocket wash.

4. While denying the charges, the appellant pleaded false implication in the wake of animosity. According to him, -

Rooplal had taken his agricultural land having an area of 2 acres on lease as a 'Shikmi' (sub-tenant) but failed to pay the contractual amount even after giving assurance before the Panchayat. In such a situation, he had taken possession of the land from Rooplal and had given the same to another person for cultivation as Shikmi. On the date of the incident, Rooplal had come to the hotel where he was sitting and asked about a home guard posted at the police station and while they were talking to each other, other members of the raiding party came there and asked as to whether he had received the money whereas he had neither demanded nor received any amount.

20. In the light of direct evidence of the complainant Rooplal as well as clinching circumstantial evidence given by members of the raiding party, learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in hold- ing that the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein were recov- ered from the right pocket of appellant's trousers.

PROBABILITY OF THE DEFENCE

21. While denying the factum of recovery of the currency notes from his possession, the appellant had asserted that he was appre- hended while conversing with complainant Rooplal who had ap- proached him to know the whereabouts of a home guard posted at the same police station. However, he was not able to disclose the name of the home guard. Moreover, his conduct of not demanding the amount said to have been payable to him as rent as per the agreement or award of the panchayat after seeing the complainant was obviously unnatural and improbable. Further, he did not specify the outstanding amount. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had received any installment payable against the amount settled between him and Rooplal or awarded by the panchayat. It is relevant to note that the complainant, even after admitting that the appellant possessed 2 acres of land, emphatically denied the suggestion that the land was taken by him for cultivation as Shikmi.

:: 13 ::

Criminal Appeal No.1976/2003

22. As rightly pointed out by learned trial Judge, no suggestion was made to the complainant that the matter was referred to and decided by the panchayat or that the agricultural land was handed over to another Shikmi namely Dayaram in view of his default in payment of the rent.

23. Coming to the evidence of defence witnesses, it may be observed that constable Ravi Shankar (DW2), while admitting the veracity of the trap, asserted that Rooplal was trying to hand over a packet presumably containing the currency notes to the appellant but this fact was not even disclosed by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code. Other defence witnesses viz. Rajendra Patel (DW1) and Murat Singh (DW3), though residents of village Tighra, claimed to hold agricultural lands near the appellant's field in village Junwani but no supportive document was placed on record. They came forward to corroborate the facts as stated by the appellant that (a) Rooplal had taken the land belonging to the appellant for cultivation as Shikmi, (b) Rooplal had failed to pay the amount outstanding as rent, (c) Panchayat had directed Rooplal to pay the outstanding amount in installments and

(d) the appellant, after evicting the complainant from the land, had inducted Dayaram as Shikmi thereof. However, they could not answer the following queries -

(i) In which year Rooplal had taken the appellant's land for cultivation.

(ii) When the appellant had given the land to Dayaram.

This apart, neither Dayaram nor Mahadeo, the Sarpanch, who headed the panchayat, was examined by the defence. Non-

:: 14 ::

Criminal Appeal No.1976/2003 examination of these material witnesses was the strongest possible circumstance to discredit the defence version.