CRLA/100/2007 of MANGAL SINGH Vs STATE and ORS. on 31 December 2012

1. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand). 2. Ranjeet Singh (since died) S/o Late Shri Daulat Singh.

3. Bhopal Singh, S/o Late Shri Hansa Singh, Both R/o Village Molkhandi, Patti Paschhimi Maniyarsyun, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal.

……..Accused/Respondents

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate/Amicus Curiae, present for the accused/ respondent No. 3.

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal, preferred under Section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 23.10.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate,1[st] Class, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 13 of 1999, whereby said court has acquitted accused/appellant No.2 Ranjeet Singh (since died) and accused/appellant No.3 Bhopal Singh from the charge of offences punishable under Section 447, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.

2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State, and learned Amicus Curaie for the accused/respondent No.3 Bhopal Singh and perused the lower court record.

3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant is resident of Village Dhuroli, Patti Maniyarsyun, District Pauri Garhwal. It is pleaded by him that he was in possession of the land in dispute, situated in Village Dhuroli. It is alleged by the complainant that the landed property situated in Dhuroli was partitioned on 26.05.1998 by the Patwari and Kanoongo of the area, Amin also surveyed the land, but accused/respondent No.2 Ranjeet Singh and respondent No.3 Bhopal Singh hurled abuses at the complainant, threatened him of dire consequences and committed criminal trespass over the land of Khasra Khata No. 3/1 of Plot No. 6027, measuring 8 Mutthi on 03.10.1998.

4) Learned Magistrate, after recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the accused Ranjeet Singh and Bhopal Singh to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 447, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the trial court recorded the evidence of the witnesses namely PW1 Mangal Singh and PW2 Jagdish Singh under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. The trial court, thereafter, framed the charge of offences punishable under Section 447, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., against both the accused Ranjeet Singh and Bhopal Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PW.1 Mangal Singh and PW2 Jagdish Singh were further cross examined under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW3 Shabhu Prasad Dhaundhiyal and PW4 Dayal Singh Kaithath were also examined under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they alleged that the evidence adduced against them was false. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the complainant has failed to prove the charge of offences punishable under Section 447, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and acquitted the accused of the said charge.

5) Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 23.10.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 13 of 1999, the complainant filed this appeal against acquittal before the Allahabad High Court, from where it is received by transfer under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal.

6) The leave was granted and appeal was admitted. Lower court record was summoned and notices were sent to the accused. Accused/respondent No.2 Ranjeet Singh said to have died during the pendency of this appeal.

7) On behalf of the complainant learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the trial court has erred in law in holding that the notice was not proved served on the accused. It is further contended that the trial court has erred in law in appreciating the evidence relating to the criminal trespass committed by the accused/respondents Ranjeet Singh and Bhopal Singh. However, on going through the lower court record, this Court finds that it is not proved on the record as to when the accused/respondents Ranjeet Singh and Bhopal Singh were served with the notices. Section 447 provides punishment for criminal trespass. Word criminal trespass is defined under Section 441 of I.P.C. Said Section is substituted by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 31 of 1961, which requires that a notice must be served and date must be specified as to when the accused had to withdraw on the unauthorized possession. Said Criminal Law Amendment Act of Uttar Pradesh is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand under Section 86 of U.P. Reorganization Act. It is not stated that on which date the notices sent by the complainant Mangal Singh through its counsel Shankar Prasad Naithani which were served on the accused/respondents Ranjeet Singh and Bhopal Singh to withdraw possession by 31.12.1998. As such, since, the mandatory requirement is not complied with, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed no error in acquitting the accused from the charge of offence punishable under Section 447 of I.P.C.

8) From the evidence on record, it is apparent that there was a dispute between the parties, regarding the land in question and the bonifide issue between them was that whether the land in question is part of the share given to the accused/respondent No.3 Bhopal Singh or the one given to the complainant. In his statement recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. PW1 Mangal Singh (complainant) has nowhere stated that the accused insulted or hurled abuses at him. Similarly, PW2 Jagdish Singh (S/o complainant) who states that he was eyewitness, has also not stated that the complainant was insulted by hurling abuses at him. As such the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused from the charge of offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C. As far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. is concerned, though both the above witnesses have stated that accused threatened the complainant of dire consequences, but no details of the incident are mentioned relating to time etc.

9) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the trial court, in acquitting the accused from the charge of offences punishable under Section 447, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.

10) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Appeal as against accused/respondent No.2 Ranjeet Singh stands abated, due to his death during the pendency of this appeal). Lower court record be sent back.

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)