Meghuram Vs Chhatrapal

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48757

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 44 of 2020

¶6

1 - Meghuram S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Lodhikapa, Police Station Than Khamhriya District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chhatrapal S/o Shri Birsingh Lodhi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lodhikapa, Police Station Than Khamhriya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Rajkumar S/o Shri Heman Kashyap R/o Village Lodhikapa, Police Station Than Khamhriya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.Md. Zakir Anam Shah, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate

¶12

For Respondents : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Judgment on Board 23/09/2025

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Judicial

¶16

2

¶17

Magistrate First Class, Saja District Bemetara (C.G.) in complaint case No.818/15 whereby respondents/ accused persons have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 447 and 427/ 34 of the I.P.C.

¶18

Facts of the case, as projected by appellant/complainant, are that he is owner of agricultural land bearing khasra No.464 area 0.30 hectare situated at village Lodhikapa, P.S. Khamariya District Bemetara. Land of respondent / accused Chatrapal is adjacent to the aforesaid land of complainant. The complainant had planted various trees like Neem, Karonda, Bamboo Babool, etc., on the boundary of his land. On 04.7.2014, the respondents/ accused persons trespassed the aforesaid agricultural land of appellant with JCB machine and uprooted aforesaid trees on the land of appellant and also damaged crop and road, thereby they caused mischief to the appellant/complainant. Respondents/ accused persons have also blocked the rainwater drainage path and the tractor access road from the complainant’s field. As a result, the paddy crop in the complainant’s field was destroyed. Since private complaint was filed by appellant which was registered by the trial Court and after appearance of respondents/ accused persons, particulars of offences under Sections 447 and 427/34 were read and explained to them which they denied and sought for trial.

¶19

In order to bring home the charges, appellant/ complainant examined as many as 05 witnesses. Statements of respondents/ accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

3

¶21

were recorded by the trial Court, in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them, claiming themselves to be innocent. Respondent Chatrapal has also stated that appellant/ complainant has constructed road on government land, because of which flow of water from his field is obstructed. Respondents have not examined any witness in their defense.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant/ complainant has examined himself and four independent witnesses, who have also specifically deposed that respondents/ accused persons have uprooted number of trees of bamboo, etc., on the appellant’s land. Those witnesses have further deposed that respondents have dug the boundaries of the field of complainant and thereby destroyed trees and road of complainant, despite that, learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents /accused persons. Hence, learned counsel for appellant/ complainant prays that appeal may be allowed and respondents/ accused persons may be convicted for the offences charged against them.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference of this Court, hence, the instant Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant/ complainant is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of trial Court with utmost circumspection.

¶25

4

¶26

Appellant/ complainant has examined himself and four other witnesses to prove the case. As per deposition of appellant, alleged mischief and uprooting of trees has been made by the respondents of the land Khasra No. 464 which is owned by him. Aatmaram (PW3), Bauha (PW4) and Ramesh Verma (PW5) are not eye-witnesses. Ghasiya (PW2) has also not supported the case of complainant. Though, he has deposed in his cross-examination that respondents/ accused persons have blocked the road, but, he has admitted that there is land of respondent adjacent from three sides to the land of complainant. He has also admitted that complainant himself has thinned the boundaries by digging it, leading to falling of trees due to rain.

¶27

Ghasiya (PW2), Aatmaram (PW3), Bauha (PW4) and Ramesh Verma (PW5) have constantly deposed that there is government land adjacent to the disputed land of complainant and on that government land appellant has constructed road. They have also admitted that because of construction of that road, water could not flow from the field of respondent/ accused. It is also clear from the evidence of aforesaid independent witnesses that dispute pertains to boundary on which some trees are present.

¶28

Though complainant has stated that disputed land is khasra No.464, but, he has not filed certified document to prove aforesaid fact. He has only filed true copy issued by the revenue authority, but, the same has not been proved by

¶29

5

¶30

calling original map of Khasra B1 (Ex.P1, P2 and P3) from the concerned authority, who maintain the same.

¶31

Perusal of evidence available on record shows that there is boundary dispute between both the parties, which is of civil nature and such dispute can be decided by Revenue Court or Civil Court after conducting demarcation of land of both the parties. Though certified copy of demarcation report and revenue proceedings have been filed by respondents/ accused vide Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, contents of that demarcation report are not found to that effect to decide dispute projected by appellant/ complainant in the instant case with regard to charge of alleged trespass and mischief leveled against the respondents/ accused persons.

¶32

In view of above discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja District Bemetara (C.G.), hence, the same is upheld.

¶33

Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE

¶36

Ayushi

¶37

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.09.25 10:57:46 +0530

Meghuram v. Chhatrapal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghuram v. Chhatrapal

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

Chhatrapal Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uday Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajulal Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Imtiyaj Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Chandravanshi Common Attorney Smt. Jay Chandravanshi Vs Habibuddin @ Guddu

Manharan Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh