CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos.2 and 3 of its judgment, reads thus:- CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 2 “2. As per the allegations, contained in the complaint, the complainant and accused are residents of village Manakpur, police station Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and is also an Ex-Panch of Gram Panchayat of village Manakpur. The accused persons joined hands to grab the property of village Panchayat including Gohar and of some other persons. All the accused persons with common conspiracy encroached upon the land of village Gohar comprised in khasra No.142 of the width of two karams. Accused No.1 Raj Rani is the Sarpanch who has constructed her house in the above khasra number in the encroached portion in connivance with other accused. It is further submitted that one Jagdev Kumar son of Kishan Chand took the demarcation of his land from the office Qanungo, Anandpur Sahib on 22.4.2004 and it was found that accused Raj Rani had encroached upon the village passage contained in Khasra No.142 of the width of 2 karams and has also encroached the adjoining land of Jagdev Kumar of the width of two karms. Demarcation report dated 22.4.2004 was prepared to this effect. Thereafter, complainant along with other vilalgers requested Raj Rani accused No.1 to remove the encroachment but she flatly refused. Thereafter, one CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 3 Raksha Devi Panch along with other persons of the village including complainant moved an application to the Director, Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh on 14.6.2004 for the suspension of accused No.1 Raj Rani. Another application was also moved by the above said persons to the Director Panchayats for the removal of Gurmit chand Panch (Accused No.2) because he had also encroached upon the village common land. An enquiry was initiated against both the accused namely Raj Rani and Gurmit Chand, which was entrusted to Zila Parishad, Ropar. Complainant and others filed their affidavits in the said enquiry. Thereafter, Secretary and Zila Parishad forwarded the enquiry to BDO, Anandpur Sahib, who further got appointed Filed Qanungo Joginder Singh for conducting the demarcation and to report regarding the encroachments by both the accused.

3. On 5.8.2005, at about 4.00 PM, when the aforesaid Qanungo Jogindder Singh was busy in conducting the demarcation of the land in dispute at village Manakpur, he found Raj Rani accused had encroached upon Khasra No.142 of passage and also adjoining land of Jagdev Singh. All the accused tried to obstruct the demarcation, so that Qanungo may not be able to furnish final demarcation report. The complainant and other persons CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 4 present there requested the accused persons not to interfere and obstruct the demarcation. Upon this, all the accused become annoyed and accused Gurmit Chand asked accused No.1 to give shoe blows to the complainant because complainant was raising voice against the interests of the accused. Thereafter accused No.3 Ravinder Kumar asked accused No.1 Raj Rani “ Mar kute chamar de jutian, main sambhal lunga.” Thereafter, accused No.2 Gurmit Chand removed his shoes and handed over the same to accused No.1 Raj Rani to give shoe blows on the body of complainant. Accused No.1 Raj Rani uttered defamatory words to the complainant while saying that Kuttia chamar tenu pinddi jaidad da malik banadi han” Then Bihari Lal, Tarsem Lal, Ramesh Kumar and other persons of the village, who were present at the spot, intervened and stopped the accused from inflicting shoes blows to the complainant by accused Raj Rani. It is further submitted that accused No.4 Kamal Kishore son of Accused No.1 came behind the complainant and he caught hold of the complainant from his neck and gave pushes. The above said witnesses who were present at the spot rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The accused also gave threats that this time complainant has CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 5 been saved but in future, they will teach a lesson to the complainant and will kill him.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. In the present case the occurrence had taken place on

5.8.2005, whereas, the complaint was moved by the complainant before the police authorities on 8.8.2005. Thereafter, the complaint in question was filed on 12.11.2005 i.e. after more than three months. Learned Special Judge has observed that the complainant- appellant had failed to explain the delay in lodging of the complaint before the police authorities after three days of the occurrence. The plea raised by the complainant was that injuries had been caused to him by the accused but while appearing in the witness box, he did not depose with regard to the injuries caused to him by the accused. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging of first complaint by the complainant to the police gains significance. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at the time of demarcation at the spot. However, DW-4 Kanungo deposed that the demarcation could not be completed on 5.8.2005 and no untoward incident had taken place at the spot. The said witness was an official and had no reason to help any of the parties. In these circumstances, learned Special Judge rightly based reliance on the statement of the said witness. Learned Special Judge has further observed that Kamal Kishore had filed a report against Rakesh Kumar and DDR No.37 CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 6 dated 28.6.2004 was recorded under Section 290/ 510 IPC and he was convicted in the said case. Accused Gurmit Chand was a witness against him in the said case. He had also filed a complaint against accused Gurmit Chand, which was dismissed. Hence, learned Special Judge rightly came to the conclusion that PW-3 Ramesh Kumar was inimical towards the accused and might have deposed falsely against the accused due to this reason. The said witness further admitted that civil cases were also pending regarding the passage in dispute. Learned Special Judge, after going through the cross- examination of PW-2 Tarsem Lal,held that the said witness was not present at the spot because he had deposed in his cross- examination that he did not intervene at the time of occurrence as he was standing on the other side. The said witness being cousin of the complainant from brotherhood might have deposed in favour of the complainant. So far as PW-4 Bihari Lal is concerned, learned Special Judge, after going through his statement, has observed that the said witness has set up a new case and admitted in his cross-examination that he had appeared as a witness in favour of complainant Nazar Khan, who had filed a complaint against accused Gurmit Chand. He has also not denied that there was party faction in the village. In these circumstances, learned Special Judge rightly held that the statements of the witnesses could not be relied upon and the CRMA No. 43-MA of 2010 7 accused were entitled for acquittal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record by the learned Special Judge. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. May 13, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE