Harimohan v. State of Rajasthan & others

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 1.11.1996, Hanuman son of Mangilal along with Harimohan son of Kanhaiya, submitted a written report at Police Station Malarna Dungar, with the facts that khasra no.742, admeasuring 1bigha 7 biswa, popularly known as 'dagar' is in his ownership and possession and that on 29.10.1996 at about 8.00 a.m., he got mustard crop sown through Umashankar's ox- plough (हल बैल(cid:585)) and on the adjacent land, which is also in the ownership of the complainant, his wife was cutting grass for the animals. At that time Shivraj, Omalya, Chhoti, laced with lathies and axe, committed trespass in his field and started beating his wife. When his younger brother Parikshit, came to her rescue, he was also beaten by the respondents and his wife was dropped by putting noose around her neck. On hearing hue and cry, the complainant, who was grazing buffaloes, came to the place of occurrence and at that time - 2 - Omalya inflicted axe blow, whereby his left hand got injured. He saved his wife, else she would have been killed by the accused persons. Case No.140/1996 was registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar (Sawai Madhopur) and after usual investigation, the challan was filed for offence under Sections 447 and 323 IPC against respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondents were read over the substance of accusation, which was denied by them. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC, they alleged false implication but did not lead defence. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties and after the perusal of material on record, recorded a finding of acquittal of the respondents. It is this order of acquittal, which has been assailed by the complainant party. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner reported the matter to the police on 1.11.1996 whereas the incident, as alleged, occurred on 29.10.1996 at 8.00 a.m. There has not been any explanation as to why the report was lodged after three days. The second circumstance, which has come on record is that cross case had been registered by the respondents against the petitioner and his party, for which the report was lodged the next day. The record also - 3 - shows that there has been a litigation between the parties with regard to the land in question. The parties belong to same clan, are litigating in number of cases with regard to this land and on account of this, they have inimical relationship. The allegation of petitioner was that the respondents committed a criminal trespass on his land. The petitioner claimed his possession on the land in question, but it is clear from record that none of the independent witnesses have corroborated this fact. Moreover, in the site-plan, Exhibit P.3, prepared by PW.10 Hukam Chand, Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence marked as 'X', is shown as a rasta (पगडंडी), which goes from village Dungri to Dhani. Thus, it is clear that the incident took place on a rasta and not on the land claimed to be in possession of Harimohan. It has also come on record that there has been considerable improvement in the statements of petitioner Harimohan and his wife Ramkanya. Learned trial court recorded the finding of acquittal of respondents of offence under Sections 447 IPC observing that the parties have more than one litigation with regard to the land in question and that they are relatives and the land belongs to their ancestors. They have a bona fide dispute amongst themselves. Moreover, the incident is proved to have occurred on a rasta (पगडंडी) and not in the so-called field, allegedly in the possession of petitioner. After going through the entire record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the court below. - 4 - So far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, it can safely be stated that there are material contradictions between the statements of petitioner Harimohan and other eye witnesses i.e. PW.3 Ramkanya, PW.4 Umashankar and PW.5 Kamlesh. So far as PW.5 Kamlesh is concerned, he has made material improvement from his statements made before the police, Exhibit P.7. He admitted in his cross examination that he had left the place and that he did not see any injury on the person of Ramkanya, nor did he see her being beaten. He also claims to have not seen any blood on the person of Ramkanya and could not even tell the khasra number of the field. Moreover, the report has been lodged by the complainant after 3 days, for which no explanation has been tendered, whereas the cross case was registered immediately the next day. The contradictions between the statements of injured, complainant and other witnesses, which are not corroborated by any documentary or oral evidence, do not inspire confidence. Even, the statements of injured persons also have not been corroborated by medical evidence. The Medical Officer, in his cross examination, has admitted that the injuries sustained by the injured, could be self inflicted also, and the enmity between the parties is fully established. The petitioner and his family are accused in the cross case, which was registered much before the petitioner's case and it appears that on legal advise, so as to create his defence, said case was registered. Looking to the conduct of the complainant and statements of - 5 - injured and other eye witnesses, the learned trial court has found that as a defence to the case against the petitioner, this case had been got registered after 3 days, which is an afterthought step. After going through the entire record, I do not find that there was an iota of evidence, so as to hold the finding of guilt of offence under Section 323 IPC, and the learned revisional court has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugend. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J. [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS