Parmeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

It is here pertinent to mention, at the very outset that appeal preferred by Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav stood abated vide order dated 17.10.2024.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

The instant criminal appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19^th November, 2005 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar in Special Case No. 17 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellant along with deceased appellants have been convicted under Section 427 and 323 of the IPC read with Section 3(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for each of the offence under Sections 323 and 427 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for each offences with default stipulation and further R.I. for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 3(x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the complainant Meghlal Mohali lodged a complaint case No. 182 of 2003 before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur on 30.06.2003 stating inter alia that on 27.06.2003, at about 8:00AM, present appellant and deceased appellants came over the plot No. 2341 and 2350 belonging to complainant and started ploughing the same although the complainant had sown paddy seeds in the above land about 10 days ago. It is further alleged that present appellant and deceased appellants assaulted to the complainant by fist and slaps and abused in the name of caste saying “Saala Harijan Bhag Jao Nahi To Mar Denge”. It is further alleged that Parmeshwar Yadav snatched silver chain from the neck of Sudami Devi weighing about 10 Bhar. The complainant went to local police and narrated about whole occurrence but he was advised to come on next day and the complainant again went on 29.06.2003 at Police Station but was directed to file complaint.

The learned SDJM after conducting enquiry into the allegations found sufficient materials for proceeding for the offence under Section 323, 341, 379 and 427 of the IPC and 3(x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against all the accused persons and issued summons against them and also transferred the case to the Special Court for adjudication. The accused persons appeared before the Special Court and denied from charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by the complainant.

P.W.-1 Topali Mohali

P.W.-2 Dingal Mohali

P.W.-3 Asho Mohli

P.W.-4 Sudami Devi

P.W.-5 Jhalku Mohli

P.W.-6 Meghlal Mohli

Apart from oral testimony, Complainat filed Certified Copy of Purcha of Mouza Tekara of J.B. No. 7 and rent receipts.

After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. As a matter of fact, the land in question belongs to accused persons in respect of which title suit No. 84/68 was instituted and decreed in favour of the accused persons. They also got mutated in Mutation Case No. 3-6/69-70.

D.W.-1 (Chuni Mandal) and D.W.-2 (Satrughan Singh) was also examined as defence witness. Apart from oral testimony of defence witnesses, some documentary evidence have also been adduced including Certified Copy of order dated 14.11.1968 in Title Suit No. 84/68, Certified Copy of Decree of Original Title Suit No. 84/68, Certified Copy of Mutation Case No. 3-6/69-70, Certified Copy of Cri. Mis. Case No. 716/2003 dated 29.11.2003 and all these documents have been exhibited as Ext.-A to L.

After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has contended that the learned trial Court has considered simply the rent receipts filed by the complainant in respect of disputed land although there is no rebuttal of judgment and decree passed in the year 1968 in favour of the appellants’ grandfather and thereafter mutation and continuous payment of rent. It is also submitted that Plot No. 2341-2350 situated in Village Tekara are in possession of the accused persons. A title suit No. 84/68 Darbari Mohli Vs. Degu Mahto was decreed in favour of Degu Mahto who happens to be grandfather of the accused persons. The land was mutated in favour of the accused persons and they are in peaceful possession of the disputed land and paddy crops were also grown by the accused persons. The complainant wrote a false complaint over the disputed property without taking any recourse from competent Court of Civil Court and has instituted this false case only with intention to humiliate and cause disturbances in the peaceful possession of the accused persons over the disputed land. The allegation about abuse in the name of caste is absolutely false and fabricated story in order to bring the case in the rigor of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is no whisper by the complainant that the above judgment and decree passed by the civil Court was ever set aside or assailed in an appeal by the complainant before higher forum. The mutation order is in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, finding of the learned trial Court that mere mutation does not create title is absolutely absurd finding in the garb of deciding the claim and counter-claim of the parties. The learned trial Court has entered into the question of deciding the title of the parties which has already been declared in favour of ancestor of the appellant. No injury report was brought on record by any of the injured and no any damage to the property invoking the offence under Section 427 of the IPC has been proved by the complainant. The complainant taking advantage of his caste has filed false complaint case only with a view to harass the appellant/accused persons in exercising their peaceful title and possession over the disputed land. The grievance if any in respect of the land in question must have been raised by the complainant before the concerned Civil Court against the judgment and decree passed in the year 1968. Therefore, the conviction and sentene of the appellant is absolutely illegal, perverse and beyond the weight of the evidence available on record, as such, liable to be set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges leveled against him.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for the Informant has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and apprised with the oral testimony of the witnesses available on record. It has also been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that the accused persons were involved in assaulting the complainant and used abusive language in the name of their caste. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal”?

Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it appears necessary to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case. P.W.-1 Topali Mohli has deposed that occurrence took place in month of Jeth, on Friday, at about 8.00 a.m. At that time, he was present in his house. He heard alarm and went to place of occurrence and saw that Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav were damaging seedling of Meghlal and when Meghlal objected, accused persons pushed him and gave beating. Sudami Devi also reached there, whose chain was snatched by Parmeshwar Yadav.

In his cross-examination, he stated that accused persons claimed that in title suit, land were decreed to them prior to occurrence. He was not aware, when field was ploughed. He was asked to accompany him to police station. Sudami Devi, Jhalku Mohli and Dingal Mohli also reached there after him. Sudami Devi disclosed that her chain was also snatched.

P.W. 2 Dingal Mohli has deposed that occurrence took place on Friday at about 8.00 a.m., on that day, he had gone to purchase basket in house of Meghlal. In the meantime, Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori ploughed the field of Meghlal Mohli and damaged his seedling and when Meghlal objected then he was beaten by the accused persons. Sudami Devi was also given beating and her chain was snatched. He admitted that Meghlal is his uncle and Meghlal was cousin of his father. Meghlal and Sudami Devi were narrating the occurrence, then he heard. There is dispute of land between both the parties.

P.W. 3 Asho Mohli has deposed that occurrence took place on Friday, at about 8.00 a.m. At that time, he was present at his house. He heard alarm from field of Meghlal Mohli. Then, he went there and saw that accused persons Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav were giving beating to Meghlal Mohli. Accused persons were ploughing the field of Meghlal and caused damage of seedling worth Rs. 800/-. He did not know that accused persons claimed for the land. Subsequently, he stated that he heard that accused persons were claiming the land. Firstly Meghlal had sown paddy seed and thereafter accused persons also sown seed on same place. When he reached to place of occurrence, then he noticed that accused persons were running and they were at about distance of 100 to 150 yards. Jhalku, Topali, Sudami and Dingal came when accused persons had reached near pond at distance of about 100 to 150 yards.

P.W. 4 Sudami Devi has deposed that occurrence took place at about 11.00 a.m., on Friday. Meghlal had sown paddy seed and that was ploughed by accused persons Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav. Meghlal went there and objected, then accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him. Parmeshwar Yadav snatched chain from her neck worth about Rs. 1000/-. She admitted that Meghlal is her brother-in-law. Her land is joint with Jhalku and Meghlal. Accused persons claiming that land belonged to them, as suit was decreed, in their favour. Meghaal filed a case in police station. She did not receive any scratch on her neck due to chain snatching. She was not medically examined. She further deposed that she did not possess any purchase receipt of the chain. Subsequently field was planted with said seedling. In court question, she stated that land was cultivated by her in the year of occurrence.

P.W. 5 Jhalku Mohli has deposed that occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. At that time, he was making basket. Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav started ploughing seedling of Meghlal Mohli. Meghlal objected then accused persons abused and threatened saying harijan to run away otherwise he would be killed. On alarm, he also went there. Sudami Devi also went there and she was abused and her chain was also snatched by Parmeshwar Yadav. He admitted that Meghlal Mohli is his real brother and Sudami is his sister-in-law. His father namely Darbari died about 7-8 years. There is no other person in name of Darbari Mohli in his village. Grandfather of accused persons was Degu Mahto. Accused persons claimed that land belonged to them as title suit was decreed in their favour. He further deposed that rent of the land was paid by him, but he was not aware that accused persons were also paying rent of the said land. He further deposed that when he reached to place of occurrence, he found his brother lying there. He was conscious and thereafter Sudami Devi reached there and accused persons went from the place of occurrence with their plough and oxen. Subsequently said land was cultivated by him and paddy was planted from seedling of the said field. He further deposed that seedling was obtained from other field. He denied that accused persons in possession of the land and that he wanted to forcibly occupy the field.

P.W.- 6 Meghlal Mohli is the star witness-cum-informant of this case who has deposed that occurrence took place about 2 years 3 months ago, on Friday, at about 8.00 a.m. At that time, he was making basket at his house then Parmeshwar Yadav, Ketku Yadav and Kishori Yadav came there and started ploughing seedling of his field. He went there to object them Parmeshwar Yadav pushed him and said Sale Harijan to run away otherwise he would be killed. His sister-in-law Sudami Devi also came there then Parmeshwar Yadav snatched her silver chain from her neck. Cost of silver chain was about Rs. 1,000/-. When witnesses Topali Mohli, Ashok Mohli came there then accused persons fled away. Dingal Mohli had also come there. He suffered loss of Rs. 800/- due to damage caused to seedling by the accused persons. He went o police station then Officer-in-Charge assured to come and enquire the matter, but he did not come, then he filed complaint in the court. In his village member of other caste such as Brahman, Kumhar, Badhai, Dom, Mian, Mohli and Pasi also reside there. He could not state topography of the police station. Police did not record his statement at police station, rather, sent him to court. He denied that accused persons were claiming for land. He also denied that in 1968 suit was decreed in favour of the accused persons. He further deposed that he was paying rent for the land. He also denied that land was mutated in the name of the accused persons. No quarrel took place, when he had sown paddy in that field. He further stated that field is near to his house and alone he had gone to field seeing that it was being ploughed. Sudami Devi reached after occurrence of Mar-Pit. Accused persons went away with their plough and oxen. Sudami did not sustain any scratch on her neck and there is no receipt of chain.

D.W. 1 Chuni Mandal has deposed that rent of the land is paid to Karamchari. He also deposed that he is jama bandi raiyet of village Takara.

D.W.-2 Satrughan Singh is Advocate Clerk and formal witness. He deposed that rent receipt of Jamebandi No.7 is in name of Degu Mahto from the year, 2001-02 and 2004-05 issued by Halka Karamchari Dina Shankar Rajak. He issued rent receipt i.e. Ext.A. He also proved rent receipt Ext. B of 23.02.2001 issued by Halka Karamchari Shiv Shankar. He also proved rent receipt of year 1996-97 issued by Halka Karamchari Fuleshwar Pandit i.e. Ext.-C. He also proved rent receipt of year 1993-94. 1994-95, 1995-96 issued by Halka Karamchari Kameshwar Pandey i.e. Ext.D, D/1, D/2. He also proved rent receipts Ext. E, E/1, E/2, E/3, E/4, E/5, E/6 and other rent receipt Ext. F, F/1, F/2, F/3, F/4 and F/5. He also proved three rent receipts issued in favour of Degu Mahto Ext. G, G/1, G/2. During cross- examination, he has specifically deposed that he did not work with Halka Karamchari Dina Shankar Rajak, Shivshankar, Fuleshwar Pandit, Kameshwar Pandey, Kartik Pd. Deo, Uttam Nr. Mishra and Munilal Singh.

In view of the above testimony of the witnesses, it is admitted fact that in respect of suit land Ext.-A and its Decree Ext.-B Title Suit No. 84/68, the complainant has filed no documents showing that any appeal was filed against the above judgment and decree in favour of the grandfather of the appellant. The very genesis of the occurrence lies in raising claim over the disputed land by the complainant but the documentary evidence are not in his favour except some rent receipts which has not been exhibited and relied upon by the learned trial Court for collateral purposes. There is nothing to substantiate the possession of the complainant over the disputed land and his plea that he has grown paddy crop about 10 days ago. The allegation about abusing on public place in the name of caste also appears to be a manipulated story in order to put pressure upon the appellant. Admittedly, F.I.R. was not entertained by the police and the mandate of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the offence must be investigated by the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police has also been floated by filing a complaint case without meeting out the provisions under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.

In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find merits in this appeal and substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted from the charge leveled against him.

In result, this appeal is allowed.

Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.