Special Leave Petitioner against acquittal in a case of obstruction, mischief, and criminal trespass arising from a land dispute. Supreme Court found no infirmity in acquittal as prosecution failed to prove title and possession.
Special Leave to Appeal dismissed with no infirmity found in the judgment of acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.14 of 2014
====================================================== Rana Singh @ Rama Singh S/O Late Mahatam Singh R/O Vill Jokiyari, P.S. Raxaul, Dist E.Champaran.
.... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bindeshwari Prasad S/O Late Laxmi Prasad. 3. Birendra Kumar S/O Deonarayan Prasad. 4. Rameshwar Prasad S/O Laxmi Prasad. 5. Vijay Kumar S/O Shiv Shankar Prasad. 6. Yugal Prasad S/O Late Ganesh Prasad. 7. Prabhunath Tiwari S/O Late Indradeo Tiwari. 8. Murari Prasad S/O Bindeshwari Prasad All R/O Vill Jokiyari, P.S. Raxaul, Dist E.Champaran. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 03-04-2014 Heard learned counsels for the appellant and the State. The present special leave to appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.01.2014, passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran, in Complaint Case No. 26 of 2012, whereby the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 341, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as per the complaint petition is that, the land of Plot No. 183, Khata No. 170 measuring an area of 1 katha and 8 dhoors, is the ancestral land of the complainant. The land is recorded in the revenue records, in the name of the grand-father of the complainant.
Patna High Court SLA No.14 of 2014 (2) dt.03-04-2014
2/3
The complainant is in possession of the land. The partition was made between the complainant and his agnates through Court. Consequently, on 12.12.2011, when the complainant was fixing pillars on his share of land, the opposite parties came and objected to the fixing of the pillars and on denial, assaulted and abused the complainant and uprooted the pillars. Subsequently opposite parties refused to reconcile the issue on 05.01.2012. The complaint was filed on 16.01.2012.
On examination of the complainant on SA and enquiry witnesses, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 427, 447 of the I.P.C. On 09.10.2012 the charges were framed under Sections 341, 427, 447 of the I.P.C. The complainant examined five witnesses to substantiate his case.
The learned Trial Court, after considering the fact that there is a serious dispute with regard to the title and possession, when the complainant failed to prove the title and possession on the land in question, came to a finding that complainant failed to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and recorded the judgment of acquittal.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses have proved the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, but due to minor inconsistency in their evidences, they have been disbelieved.
From perusal of the materials on record, it appears that prosecution has failed to produce any document
Patna High Court SLA No.14 of 2014 (2) dt.03-04-2014
3/3
with regard to the title and possession, when most of the witnesses have suggested that the land has been acquired by the Government and there is a dispute with regard to the payment of compensation. Moreover when the prosecution has failed to prove the title and possession, then the offence of mischief under Section 427 of the I.P.C and criminal tress-pass under Section 447 of the I.P.C. can not be proved.
In view of discussion made above, this Court
finds no infirmity with the judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly the S.L.A. is dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
U.K./Shageer/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of opposite parties accused of prosecution and criminal trespass under Sections 427 and 447 IPC was infirm because there was a severe dispute between the parties regarding the ti
Whether the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the title and possession of the complainant, thereby negating the essential ingredients of the offences of prosecution and criminal trespass.
Whether in the absence of documentary evidence of title and possession, and with some inconsistencies in witness statements, the learned Trial Court was correct in acquitting the accused beyond reason
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rana Singh @ Rama Singh
The State of Bihar
Bindeshwari Prasad
Birendra Kumar
Rameshwar Prasad
Vijay Kumar
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
