PUNI DEVI & ORS. versus TULSI RAM on 13 February 2019

PUNI DEVI & ORS.

v.

TULSI RAM

(Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2019)

FEBRUARY 13, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.379, 427, 447 and 504 r/w s.149 –Criminal trespass and theft – Complainant-respondent alleged thataccused persons trespassed into his land, thereafter, they cut andremoved the wheat crop from the land and ran away with a bundleof wheat – Trial Court after appreciating evidence on the recordcame to conclusion that the offence was not established – However,High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court – On appeal,held: The evidence indicated that there was a dispute in regard tothe land since both the parties were claiming possession and a suitregarding the same was pending between them – On this evidence,Trial Court concluded that there was no cogent evidence to indicatethe possession of the complainant over the land – Hence, the entirecase of the unlawful cutting of the crop of wheat was rendereddoubtful – Trial court had carefully appreciated evidence on therecord – High Court was not justified in setting aside the findingsof the Trial Court.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018/Order on quantumof sentence dated 21.12.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh atShimla in Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 2010.

Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. for the Appellants.

The Order of the Court was passed by

DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leavegranted.

2. None appears for the complainant-respondent despite serviceof notice.

1

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

3. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 20 November 2008of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh bywhich a judgment of acquittal has been reversed. The appellants weretried for offences punishable under Sections 379, 427, 447, 504 and 506read with Section 149 of the Penal Code.

B4. The trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi arose outof a private complaint[1]. The case of the complainant (the respondentbefore this Court) is that he is the owner in possession of land comprisedin khasra No. 817 situated at Village Bataur, Illaqa Tungal, Sub-TehsilKotli, District Mandi. It was alleged that on 29 March 2007 at about6.30 pm, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed intoCthe land of the complainant. It was alleged that thereafter they cut andremoved the wheat crop from the land. When the complainant alongwith his daughter and son in law attempted to resist them, it is allegedthat the accused abused the complainant and the members of her family.It is alleged that the accused thereafter ran away from the spot with aDbundle of wheat of the value of approximately Rs 1500.

5. The Trial court during the course of the judgment elaboratelyanalysed the testimony of the three principal witnesses. CW-1, thecomplainant, deposed that on the day of the incident at about 6 pm whenhe visited his land, he witnessed the accused cutting the crop of wheatEfrom his field. The complainant stated that when he attempted to resistthe action, the accused attacked him with a sickle. Subsequently, afterabusing the complainant, they ran away from the spot.

6. In the course of cross-examination, the complainant admittedthat village Betaur is a large village. The witness was confronted withFthe fact that no villager had witnessed the occurrence. He admitted thathe had not furnished any information to the Pradhan or to the membersof the Panchayat about the occurrence.

7. CW-2 Meena Devi, who is the daughter of the complainantadmitted during the course of the incident that the accused had onlyGabused the complainant and not assaulted him. She admitted that nocomplaint had been made to the police.

8. CW-3 in the course of his cross-examination also admitted thatthe accused had not been beaten up the complainant, but that there wasan altercation. The above evidence, the learned Trial Judge observed,H 1 No. 8-II/2007

PUNI DEVI & ORS. v. TULSI RAM[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

indicated that there was a dispute in regard to the land since both theparties were claiming possession. It was admitted by CW-2 that a suitwas pending in regard to the land in dispute. On this evidence, the Trialcourt concluded that there was no cogent evidence to indicate thepossession of the complainant over the land. Hence, the entire case ofthe unlawful cutting of the crop of wheat was rendered doubtful. TheTrial court observed that no independent witness had been examined.CW-2 and CW-3 who were the daughter and son in law of the complainantalso admitted that there was a dispute and that the complainant had notbeen assaulted. Moreover, there was no cogent evidence to indicateany intentional insult intending or knowing that it would cause the victimto breach the public peace or to commit any other offence had beenuttered. For these reasons, the Trial Court came to the conclusion thatthe offence was not established.

9. The High Court by its impugned judgment re-appreciated theevidence. On perusing the judgment of the High Court, we do not findany application of mind to the basic facet that the High Court was dealingwith an appeal against acquittal. There is nothing in the judgment of thelearned Single Judge to indicate a perversity of approach. The learnedTrial Judge carefully appreciated the evidence on the record. The HighCourt was not justified in setting aside the well considered findings ofthe learned Trial Judge. As a consequence, we maintain the judgment ofacquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

10. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and orderof the High Court is set aside.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H