Munni Lal vs Ram Dhari and Others

Ikram-ul-Bari, J.—List revised. Shri M.D. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant is present. Learned A.G.A. is also present. None however, appears on behalf of the Respondents.

Munni Lal the Appellant was the complainant for before the learned Magistrate.

The Appellant had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the six Respondents alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 427/504/506, I.P.C. by the Respondents.

The version in the complaint was that the Appellant is holder of plot No. 149 in village Barbaripura. Its area is 10 Bighas. When he reached at his field as usual to look after it, he found the Respondents driving away a bullock cart through his brinjal field. The Respondents had placed 5 mounds brinjals worth Rs. 100 on the bullock cart. When he protested, the Respondents abused and threatened him with death. He raised alarm whereupon the witness cited in the complaint arrived at the scene and rescued the Appellant. The Respondents forcibly took away brinjals worth Rs. 100. He went to the police station and gave a written report to the Muharrir. When he requested for its copy, the Muharrir told him that his report could not be recorded. At that time Ramadhari Respondent was present and talking to the Muharrir. He sent a written application by registered post to the S.P., Ghazipur, and when the police did not take any action he has filed this complaint.

At the trial Munni Lal Appellant was examined as P.W. 1, Ram Jatan was examined as P.W. 2 and Shri Ram Singh was examined as P.W. 3. As against the complaint version that Munni Lal had seen the culprits carrying the bullock cart through his field, he stated as P.W. 1 that Rama Shanker was getting the brinjals picked out, that he himself was not picking up the brinjals, that the brinjals were placed in the Jholi meant for keeping Bhoosa. He also told that he did not give any report at the police station. The substance of the statement of P.W. 1 is that when -he reached he only saw the bullock cart driven by the Respondents from or through his field. How he could know that the brinjals have been picked out from his field has not been explained. P.W. 2 claimed that when he reached, the Respondents were taking the bullock cart through the brinjals field and there were brinjals on the bullock cart weighing about 4-5 mounds which they had picked. In his cross-examination, he claimed that the Respondents were abusing and were picking up the brinjals at the same time. Obviously, P.W. 2 could not see the Respondents picking up the brinjals if he had reached on the alarm raised by Munni Lal since he himself had not seen the picking up of the brinjals. P.W. 3 stated that the Respondents were carrying the 4-5 mounds brinjals in the bullockcart after picking them from the field. In the cross-examination, he told that when he reached, the bullock cart had gone away : that 4-5 persons were sitting on the bullockcart. He further told the defence counsel that when he reached, the culprits were carrying the Jholi in which the brinjals had been placed.

There is no assurance in the evidence that if there were brinjals on the bullockcart the same has been picked from the field of the complainant. The varying statement of the witnesses in this regard failed to convince that if there were brinjals in the bullockcart, the same belonged to the Appellant. In this state of evidence, the Respondents were entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. It is possible to disagree with some comments of the learned Magistrate in his judgment but the judgment and the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.