Ramavatar vs State of Rajasthan and others

K.C. Sharma, J.—This Criminal revision under Sec.397 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 14.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Behror, by which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused non-petitioners of the charge u/s 447 IPC.

The allegation of the complainant petitioner was that accused non-petitioners have encroached upon some part of his land bearing khasra No.358 situated in village Adeend Tehsil Behror, district Alwar and as such they committed criminal trespass which is punishable u/s 447 IPC. The learned trial Court, on elaborate discussion of the prosecution evidence has recorded categorical finding to the effect that it appears from the contradictions in the statements of witnesses that PW1 Hari Prasad Sharma neither visited the site nor measured the land bearing khasra No.358. On the contrary he prepared the report at some other place and got the signatures of witnesses.

As such the prosecution, on the basis of evidence adduced by it has not been able to establish beyond doubt that accused non-petitioners have encroached upon the land of the complainant bearing Khasra No.358 to the extent of the 4 mtrs towards east and 4 mtrs towards west side. It appears to me that the complainant had no knowledge as to which part of his field merged with the land of the accused non petitioners. When complainant himself had no knowledge about the exact measurement of his land, then now and on what basis the complainant could allege that accused non-petitioners have encroached upon his land to the extent of 4 mtrs towards east and 4 mtrs towards west side. In fact, he came to know for the first time about the measurement at the time when Patwari and Kanugo measured his field.

That apart, a perusal of the FIR shows that complainant has not mentioned the date on which the non-petitioner encroached upon some part of his agricultural land. As stated above, the complainant petitioner came to know about the fact that some part of his land merged with the land of the petitioner only at the time when the land was measured. In this view of the matter, the ingredients of Section 447 IPC are not fulfilled.

A perusal of the complaint further makes it clear that some dispute was pending in the revenue court. In para 7 of the complaint, the petitioner has alleged that accused have filled a suit titled Shivlal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and that he has not been arrayed as a party to the suit. It is further mentioned that alongwith the said suit the accused have got decided an application under Sec.212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Even from the contents of complaint it appears to me that some revenue dispute is going on between the parties, which in my considered view can only be decided by the revenue courts.

Be that as it may, from what has been stated above, it must be held that prosecution has not been able to make out a case for offence u/s 447 IPC. The trial court, in my firm view, has rightly acquitted the accused non-petitioners of the charge levelled against them.

Consequently, the revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal is affirmed.