Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2629/2005 of RANOODAS PANKA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2629 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1.RANOODAS PANKA S/O MANGALDAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SAMANDAS PANKA S/O MANGALDAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.RAMMUDAS PANKA S/O MANGAL DAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.NANHEDAS PANKA S/O MANGALADAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.SOMDAS PANKA S/O MANGALDAS PANKA, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
YEARS,
6.SARVANDAS PANKA S/O SADANAND PANKA,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
7.SMT. RAMBAI PANKASARVANDAS PANKA, AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
8.SMT. DROPDIBAI PANKARANTODAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
9.SMT. SOHAGBAI PANKARANOODAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
10.KULPATDAS PANKA S/O MANGALDAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
11.ROOPDAS PANKA S/O MANGALDAS PANKA, AGEDABOUT 37 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
12.SMT. CHANDARBAI PANKAKULPATDAS PANKA,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,VILL.BHURKA,P.S.DINDORI,DISTT.DINDORI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINIT MISHRA -ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DINDORI (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRIYANKA JAIN - PANEL LAWYER)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESERVED ON :- 25-01-2024PRONOUNCED ON :- 02-02-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Gajendra Singh passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGEMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C has beenpreferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 02-12-2005 in SpecialCase No. 63/2004 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 wherebythe appellants/accused have been convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulations.
2. The case in brief are that the appellants/accused does not belongt o the SC/ST category but, victim-Premvati ( PW-5) and Kripal Singh(PW-8) belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category. Victim Premvati (PW-5)purchased a land of 0.48 RA of Survey No. 479/2 situated at villageBhurka Tahsil Shahpura District Dindori from Kemon Das Panka throughregistered sale deed in the year 1999 and Kripal Singh (PW-8) purchased aland of 0.48 RA of Survey No. 479/3 situated at village Bhurka TahsilShahpura District Dindori through registered sale deed in the year 1999from Rambai Panka.
3 . Naib Tahsildar-Mehandwani ensured the possession of thoselands to victim on 03-11-2012 and victims cultivated the crop of wheat. On26-03-2023, the appellants/accused started to reap the victim's crop andtake away the victim's crop valued at Rs. 5,000/- dishonestly without theirconsent and threatened to kill the victim calling by their caste name'Gondua'. Smt. Premvati Bai (PW-5) got registered a Crime No. 87/03 atpolice station AJAK, District Dindori. After completion of investigation, afinal report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C was submitted to thecompetent court.
4. The appellants/accused were tried under Section 379 of IPC and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 before the Special Judge SC/ST Act,Dindori.
5. The appellants/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
6. Prosecution examined victim Premavati Bai (PW-5), Kripal Singh(PW-8), witness Aklu Singh (PW-1), Kanahiya Lal (PW-2), Hovelal (PW-
3), Dharm Singh (PW-4), Dhan Singh (PW-6), Bhajanlal Bisen (PW-7),Dhirulal Parthe (PW-9), Deva Singh (PW-10), Assistant Sub-Inspector-S.S.Rajput (PW-11), Head constable- Arun Kumar Sarothe (PW-12),Police Inspector-R.K. Jyotisi (PW-13), Adun Singh (PW-14) and B.S.Rajput (PW-15).
7 . Appreciating the prosecution evidence and defence version,learned trial Court acquitted the appellants/accused from the charge underSection 379 of IPC but, convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (POA)Act,1989 and sentenced the appellants/accused as per paragraph-1 of thejudgment.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that when the appellants/accused have beenacquitted of the major offences then, conviction under Section 3(1)(v) ofSC/ST Act is illegal. Sentence is also severe and uncalled for.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction andsentence.
10. Perused the record.
11. Appreciating the testimony of Premvati Bai (PW-5) and Kripal S ingh (PW-8), trial Court concluded in paragraph-18 that theappellants/accused interfered in the possession of victims land. Fordrawing this conclusion the learned trial Court has referred to paragraph-18 of the Premvati Bai (PW-5) and concluded in paragraph-38 that theappellants/accused have committed the offence under Section 3(1)(v) ofSC/ST Act by interfering in the possession over the lands of Survey No.479/2 and Survey No. 479/3 situated at Tahsil Shahpura District Dindori.
12. For recording this finding, the learned trial Court has referred tothe testimony of Premvati Bai (PW-5) that appellants/accused have reapedtheir crop. This Premvati Bai has stated in paragraph-9 of her statementthat she was not present when the crop was reaped. The same statementhas been reiterated by Kripal Singh (PW-8) in paragraph-7 of his statement.Hovelal (PW-3) also stated in his cross-examination in paragraph-11 that hewas not present at the field, when the crop of field was reaped. Dhan Singh(PW-6) does not support the prosecution and Adun Singh (PW-14) wasalso found unreliable. For the reasons mentioned in paragraph-44 of thejudgment, the evidence of Inspector-R.K. Jyotisi (PW-13), Dharm Singh(PW-4) and Dhan Singh (PW-6), was not found reliable to implicate theappellants/accused for reaping the crop of victims. Premvati Bai (PW-5)has admitted in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the statement that there is a civildispute pending between the appellants and the victims. Kripal Singh (PW-8) also admits this fact in paragraph-10 of his statement.
1 3 . The fact that a civil dispute is pending between theappellants/accused and victims relating to possession over the lands ofSurvey No. 479/2 and 479/3, case of reaping the crop has been failed thenon re-appreciation of evidence, the findings of learned trial Court regardingconviction of appellants/accused under Section 3(1)(v)of SC/ST Act, 1989cannot be maintained.
14. This appeal is allowed. The conviction of appellants/accusedunder Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act is set aside. The appellants/accusedare acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stands discharged.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE