Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 855 of 1984 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sheodan Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- ,Daya Ram Yadav
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, Additional Government Advocate for the appellant.
This appeal against acquittal has been filed from the judgment of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 16.12.1983 passed in S.T. No.63 of 1983(State vs. Sheodan and others) acquitting respondents from all the charges.
On the complaint of Buddhu (PW-1), F.I.R. of Case Crime No.133 of 1980 was registered on 11.6.1980 at 9-45 P.M. at P.S. Hastinapur, district Meerut under Section 323/324/307 IPC, against Sheodan, Sultan, Sukhvir and Dharamvir. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the informant and Sheodan and others had a dispute in respect of a plot for which litigation between them was going on. The informant had his manure pit in the disputed plot. Sheodan and others were lifting manure which was obstructed by the informant then Sheodan and Sukhvir armed with ballams(spears) and Sultan and Dharamvir armed with lathis assaulted him and his son. On their hue and cry Kaliya son of Mitara, Rohtash son of Devisingh, Iqram son of Arjun and other villagers had come there and pacified the dispute at that time.
The injuries of Buddhu were examined by Dr. A. Navi on 11.6.1980 at 10-00 P.M. and those of Badalu on 11.6.1980 at 10-35 P.M. and he prepared the injury reports. Their injury reports were Ext.Ka-4 and Ext.Ka-5 respectively. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against respondents on which cognizance was taken. On committal, the case was registered as S.T. No.63 of 1983. Assistant Sessions Judge framed the charges on 20.05.1983. The respondents denied the charges and claimed trial.
In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution examined Buddhu (PW-1), Iqram(PW-2), Badalu(PW-3), S.I. Raj Kumar Singh (PW-4), Dr.N.S. Pal (PW-5) and Dr. A Navi (PW-6).
All the incriminating materials and evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and evidence. They stated that they had their gher on abadi of the village in which they had their possession for more than 35 years and it was their property. This gher was surrounded by walls from three sides and in southern side there was no wall. Sheodan and Sultan had also their huts in this plot They used to tether their cattle there and also they had manure pits in it and two bithoras. Buddhu and Badalu had no concern with the land in dispute or manure pit and bithoras in it. On the date of incident Buddhu and Badalu forcibly tried to lift their manure, which was obstructed by them on which Buddhu armed with ballam and Badalu armed with lathi attacked upon them and they also made lathis blows in their self defence in which Buddhu and Badalu received injuries. His injuries were also examined on 11.6.1980 at 11-50 P.M. In defence they examined Ramlal (DW-1), Vijay Kumar (DW-2, ) Kaliya (DW-3) and Jagshoran (DW-4).
The trial court after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment found that the informant could not prove his ownership and possession over the disputed land. The prosecution had no explanation relating to injuries of Sheodan Singh although Sheodan had received five injuries on his body, out of which two injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon as such the prosecution had not come with clean hands as such the order of acquittal has been passed given benefit of doubt to the accused.
We have considered the argument of the counsel for the appellant.
Buddhu(PW-1) had lodged F.I.R. in which he had stated that there was a litigation between the parties in respect of disputed land but Buddhu(PW-1) in his cross examination had admitted that he had not filed any civil or revenue suit in respect of disputed land. Buddhu(PW-1) was not able to prove his title or possession over the disputed land by filing any documentary evidence in this respect. So far as the possession of Buddhu(PW-1) is concerned, he merely claimed possession on the basis of manure pit over the disputed land. On the other hand accused claimed that they had two huts over the disputed land and they regularly tethering their cattle over it and manure pit claimed by Buddhu(PW-1) and Badalu(PW-3) belonged to them. It is admitted to Badalu (PW-3) that there were three manure pits over the disputed land. In the circumstance, the informant was found to be aggressor and in addition to it his title or possession over the land in dispute was not proved. The finding recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality.
The prosecution has concealed the fact that from the side of accused no one had received injuries. The injuries of Sheodan, one of the accused, were examined by Dr. A. Navi (PW-6) on 11.6.1980 at 11-50 P.M. which was proved by him. On the body of Sheodan 5 injuries were found out of which two injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. On behalf of the prosecution Dr. A. Navi has not been cross examined in respect of the injuries of Sheodan. Therefore, the prosecution has not come with clean hands and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt has been rightly given to the accused.
The judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality. The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 mt