Ito vs Deewan Chand Pruthi on 2 June, 2013
10.In his statement DW1 Sh. Natha Singh, the owner of the land categorically
deposed that he has given the land for cultivation to the accused and proved
on record document Ex.DW1/1 i.e. collector surplus to show his ownership qua
land in dispute. Contrary to the statement of DW1 the prosecution witness
merely stated that said Natha Singh is/was not the owner of the land which
cannot be considered. One question may be asked from the prosecution if
DW1 is/was not the owner of the land in dispute, as to who is/was the owner of
ITO vs Deewan Chand Pruthi 7 of 9
the said land and no other witness was produced by the prosecution. The so
called statement of village Sarpanch and Patwari was never produced before
this court nor any evidence is produced. Merely bald statement is not sufficient
to prove the allegations against the accused. The contentions of the
complainant further falsified in view of the testimony of PW2 itself. PW2 relied
on the statement of inspector Mr. Hera who allegedly made inquiry that land
was not given to the accused for cultivation but by DW1 on the other hand the
prosecution is relying that DW1 was not the owner of the land in question. Both
contentions are contrary to each other itself. The testimony of PW2 also not
explained as to what enquiry was made, from whom said inquiry was made
and merely stating that enquiry was made is not sufficient. The complainant
could not name any person or produce any person from any authority from
whom the inquiry was made in this respect. Even if the contentions of the
complainant is accepted for a minute the complainant failed to show as to who
is the owner of the land in question if said Natha Singh is not the owner of the
said land as no alternative was given by the complainant. The testimony of
DW1 Sh. Natha Singh remained categorical and in support of his contention
he has also proved collector surplus certificate Ex.DW1/1 which remains
unrebutted.