Jhaduram Rawte Vs Smt. Basanti Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 37 of 2016

¶5

Jhaduram Rawte S/o Late Shri Sunder Lal Rawte Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Bramhanpara Keshkal, Thana And Tahsil Keshkal, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Basanti Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Yadav, R/o Village Keshkal, Thana And Tahsil Keshkal, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

Mukesh Rathore S/o Late Shri Ramcharan Rathore Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Keshkal, Thana And Tahsil Keshkal, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Shreyansh Pathak on behalf of Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Krishna Kant Prajapati on behalf of Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

10/01/2024 :

¶15

This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Keshkal, District Kondgaon in Criminal Complaint Case No.179/2012 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Section 448 and 120-B of the IPC.

¶16

2

¶17

Facts of the case are that complainant Jhaduram Rawte has filed a complaint case on 19^th March, 2010 alleging that his house is situated at Brahmanpara Square in Keshkal. On 11.2.2010, Tehsildar, Keshkal has handed over possession of the house to Mangli Bai. On 12.2.2010, respondent/accused Mukesh Rathore and Tehsildar, Keshkal, after breaking the door, handed over the possession to respondent No.1 Basanti Yadav.

¶18

After recording of the statements under Sections 200 & 202 of the CrPC, a case was registered against the respondents/accused persons, though complaint has been filed under Sections 448, 457, 379, 120-B of the IPC against the respondents and one BR Thakur, Tehsildar, but no cognizance was taken against the then Tehsildar, Keshkal.

¶19

The complainant has examined himself, Udairam and Shakti Pal Upadhyay. The respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In their statements, they have stated that they have been falsely implicated. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. Hence this appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective inasmuch as the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur in Criminal Revision No.9A/23/2007-08, vide order dated 25^th January, 2010 dismissed the Revision preferred by respondent No.2 – Mukesh Rathore and ordered for handing over the possession of the land bearing Khasra

¶21

3

¶22

No.93/1-x, ad measuring 0.04 acre to tribal Khatedar namely, Mangli Bai, wife of the present appellant. In pursuance of the said order, Tehsildar, Keshkal has also issued notice on 6.2.2010. He further submits that on 11.2.2010, respondent No.2 Mukesh Rathore has already handed over possession of the land and the house to said Mangli Bai, but again on the next day i.e. 12.2.2010, they have been dispossessed and again possession was handed over in connivance with Tehsildar by respondent No.2 to Basanti Bai and the said fact has been duly proved by the complainant and his witnesses. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondents/accused.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the complainant in his cross-examination categorically admits that for Khasra No.93/1/d, a civil suit has been filed which has been decided in favour of respondent/accused Mukesh Rathore, against which the complainant has preferred an Appeal. Therefore, there was bonafide dispute about possession of the land and no criminal trespass has been committed or made out, and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. The impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

4

¶26

In the impugned judgment, the trial Court has assigned the reason that for the disputed land, a civil suit was preferred, which was adjudicated in favour of the respondent/accused Mukesh Rathore, against which the complainant has preferred an Appeal and the said fact was duly corroborated from the statement of the complainant (PW-1). The complainant has not proved any Panchnama about handing over the possession by respondent No.2 Mukesh Rathore in favour of wife of the complainant.

¶27

Considering the fact that there was bonafide dispute with regard to possession of the land and the house, and the said matter was pending before the Civil Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly observed that there was no criminal intention and necessary ingredients of criminal trespass has not been established and acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are just and proper, which do not call for any interference.

¶28

In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶30

Barve

Jhaduram Rawte v. Smt. Basanti Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhaduram Rawte v. Smt. Basanti Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ganpat Sonkar

Omprakash Jain Vs Smt.jamuna Devi Thakur

Smt. Dhaneshwari Vs Ramcharan Sahu

Harish Sangtani @ Ricky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Damayanti Debta Vs Sheshdeo Debta (Dead)