Shishpal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein for assailing the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 (CIS No.53/15) affirming the judgment dated 17.07.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh in Original Criminal Case No.32/2010 whereby the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted from the charges under Sections 447 & 427 IPC.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel representing the petitioner-complainant, Shri A.R. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Abhinav Jain, learned counsel representing the acquitted accused - respondents Nos.2 to 4.

Two courts below of competent jurisdiction have examined the factual matrix of the case and have recorded concurrent findings of facts holding that the petitioner-complainant was never in possession of the field in question. The trial court, being the Gram Nyayalaya took note of the fact that the civil court, while deciding the civil litigation instituted inter se between the parties recorded a finding in its order dated 10.05.2005 (Ex.D-1A) that the complainant-petitioner was never in possession of the land in question. In the agreement (Ex.P/5) dated 27.01.1992 which the complainant relied upon in support of his claim that he was given possession of the land at the time of execution, the recital regarding possession was scored out. No neighbour of the field in question was examined to corroborate the complainant's assertion that he was in possession over the land in question. After evaluating this factual aspect of the matter, the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh proceeded to acquit the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of the charges. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment of acquittal in appeal which has been dismissed as above by judgment dated 21.03.2018.

After considering the submissions advanced by Shri Matoria and Shri Abhinav Jain, learned counsel representing the respective parties and after going through the impugned judgments, I am of the firm opinion that the findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned judgments are based on thorough appreciation of the evidence available on record and are absolutely unimpeachable. The document on which the petitioner relied upon being the agreement (Ex.P/5) did not bear any recital that the possession of the land in question was handed over to him because the said recital was explicitly scored out. The Civil Court decided this very issue against the complainant. Therefore, there was no option for the Gram Nyaylalaya but to acquit the accused-respondents of the charges. The impugned judgment has also been affirmed in appeal vide judgment dated 21.03.2018. Thus, while appreciating the matter in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court would be loathe to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts so recorded by the courts below moreso when such findings are based on the apropos appreciation of evidence available on record. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed as such.