Crl.Misc. No.203-MA of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Misc. No.203-MA of 2009
Date of decision: 3.8.2009
Partap Singh
... Petitioner
versus
Roshan Lal and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Partap Singh filed this appeal against the impugned judgment
dated 29.1.2009 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, vide
which private complaint filed by Brahmdutt (deceased) was dismissed.
Initially, Brahmdutt filed a complaint under Sections 435/34 IPC
on the allegation that he had sown wheat/gram crop in his two acres land
during Rabi 1999. After harvesting the wheat/gram crop, the same was
stored adjacent to firni of the village. On 7.4.1999, when the complainant
was present in the house of Chuni Lal, then his grand-daughter Manjeet,
aged about 8/9 years, came and told that his crop was burnt. The
complainant had gone to the place of occurrence and found that the crop
worth Rs.25,000/- had been burnt. The matter was reported to the police on
8.4.1999, but no action was taken by the police. The respondents were in
dispute with the complainant. They had threatened the complainant to teach
him a lesson. Later on, Mahabir and Balbir informed the complainant that
they had seen the respondents accused while running away from the spot.
The respondents had also made extra judicial confession before Babu Lal.
After preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned to face
Crl.Misc. No.203-MA of 2009 2
trial under Sections 435/34 IPC vide order dated 5.10.2006. Ultimately, the
respondents were acquitted of the charge levelled against them vide the
impugned judgment dated 29.1.2009.
Feeling dis-setisfied with the judgment dated 29.1.2009, the
instant appeal has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Brahmdutt owned
land measuring two acres and in that land, wheat/gram crop was sown.
After harvesting the crop, same was stored near the firni of the village. On
7.4.1999, Manjeet had seen the respondents while setting on fire the crop.
Mahabir and Balbir had informed the complainant that they had seen the
respondents while running away from the spot. The respondents had also
made extra judicial confession before Babu Lal. He also argued that the
evidence on the file had not been properly scrutinised by the trial Court.
I have gone through the file and am of the view that the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant seems to be not reasonable
one. According to the story, wheat/gram crop was sown in the land
measuring two acres, but in support thereof, no documentary proof was
brought on file. No jamabandi or khasra girdawari has been produced to
prove that wheat/gram crop was sown in the land in question. Manjeet is
the eye witness, but her statement inspires no confidence. Manjeet when
appeared in the Court stated that on 7.4.1999, she was playing at some
distance from the place where the wheat/gram crop was lying stored. At
around 2/2.30 PM, Pardeep had set the crop on fire and Roshan Lal was
standing nearby. In her cross-examination, she stated that she cannot state
whether the fire brigade came to spot or not. She rather admitted that when
the fire was put, 20/25 persons were on the spot. They all were the residents
Crl.Misc. No.203-MA of 2009 3
of her village. The police came to the spot several times, but she cannot tell
when the police came to the spot. That means a report was lodged with the
police but no record was summoned from the concerned police station as to
whether report qua the occurrence was lodged by the appellant side.
Mahabir PW in his cross-examination admitted that he had not
seen the respondents setting the wheat/gram crop on fire. Babu Lal stated
that wheat/gram crop of Brahmdutt was burnt but he has no knowledge
who had set on fire the same. Only Manjeet has stated that Pardeep had set
on fire the wheat/gram crop. The FIR was lodged on the next day and as per
the FIR, Manjeet had informed the complainant that his crop was burnt.
After getting information from Manjeet, the complainant had gone to the
spot. He was not sure who had set on fire the wheat/gram crop. The FIR
rather shows that some unknown persons had set on fire the wheat/gram
crop. Had Manjeet disclosed the names of the accused, then while lodging a
report with the police, the complainant would have informed the police that
his grand daughter Manjeet had seen the accused party while setting on fire
the wheat/gram crop.
According to Manjeet, only Pardeep had set on fire the
wheat/gram crop, but the statement of Manjeet does not inspire confidence
because as per FIR (Annexure P-1), there is no allegation of complainant
Brahmdutt that Manjeet had informed him that wheat/gram crop was set on
fire by the respondents. In the FIR, the respondents were not named. It
rather states that some unknown persons had set on fire the crop, which
goes to show that statement of Manjeet is an after thought.
As per the story, Mahabir and Babu Lal had seen the accused
while running from the spot. But Mahabir in his cross-examination admitted
Crl.Misc. No.203-MA of 2009 4
that he had not seen the respondents while setting on fire the crop, whereas
Babu Lal has also stated that he has no knowledge how and who had burnt
the crop of Brahmdutt.
First of all, the complainant was required to produce copy of
jamabandi or khasra girdawari to show that he was in possession of the
land and he had sown wheat/gram crop in the said land. Brahmdutt was not
an eye witness. As per the story put forward, Manjeet had seen the
respondents while setting the crop on fire, but in the Court, she stated that
one respondent was seen while setting on fire the crop, and the second was
found standing near the crop. On the next day, the FIR was lodged by
Brahmdutt. In the FIR, there is not a word that Manjeet had informed the
complainant about the incident and that she had seen such and such person
while setting on fire the wheat/gram crop. When the complainant was not
owning the land, there is no question of sowing the wheat/gram crop and
thereafter storing it near the firni of the village. Due to old enmity amongst
the parties, possibility of false implication of the respondents cannot be
ruled out. The occurrence is of 7.4.1999, but on that date, no complaint was
lodged with any authority. On the next date, the matter was reported to the
police, but the report is contrary to the ocular evidence.
When there are two views, then the view favouring to the accused
is to be accepted. The evidence was rightly scrutinised by the trial Court.
Judgment of the trial Court is to be reversed if the same is perverse and
against the facts.
In the light of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and leave
to appeal is declined.
3.8.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE