Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) This is an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jalore in Session Case No. 5/2005 for the offence under Sections 148, 323 and in the alternate 323/149 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(l)(v) of the SC & ST Act whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: JUDGEMENT_239_LAWS(RAJ)11_2013.htm The facts in short are that the complainant Suja Ram S/o Asha Ram lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Jalore stating therein that he purchased the land at Sedariya, Tehsil Ahore bearing Kasra Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 from one Patu and Kaku. The land was in their possession and they were living there. They were cultivating the same. It is further stated that an engine, two bags of Wheat, Jeera, one fan puli, plastic pipes, 8-10 cords, 15-20 beddings, one box and some utensils were also lying there. However, on 2.11.2002, at about 6.00 a.m., the accused persons namely Jagat Singh, Bishan Singh. Manohar Singh, Jodh Singh, Manohar Singh S/o Guman Singh, Babu Singh and Thakur Bhanwar Singh came there in two jeeps and one tractor. These 25-30 people were armed .with various weapons. Accused Manohar Singh, Jagat Singh etc. giving them beating, as a result of which Suja Ram, Asha Ram, Guni Devi, Dhapu and Chimna Ram sustained injuries on their person. These persons also abused them. It was alleged that they misbehaved with the women present there and ultimately, they ran away from the spot. It was further alleged that the accused persons took away the gold articles belonging to Guni Devi and Dhapu Devi. The motive alleged behind the incident was to take the possession of the land in question. On the basis of the statement of Suja Ram, an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 143, 447, 149, 354, 379 and 323 I.P.C. as also under Section 3(l)(v) of the SC and ST Act. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 148 and 323 and in the alternate under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and under Section 3(l)(v) of the SC and ST Act. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 27 witnesses. As per the prosecution story the land belonged to Kaku and Patu. They sold the land to the complainant Suja Ram - PW-1 vide sale deed dated 30.7.2002 (Ex. P/6). It is further stated that initially the possession was handed over to Kaku and Patu on 19.7.2000. In support of the same, statement of Gulab Singh, Revenue Inspector was recorded as PW-17. It was stated by him that the possession was handed over by him to Kaku and Patu. One witness PW-27 -Sawai Singh Godara, Investigating Officer was produced. As per witness PW-27, the complainant had erected a small hut in which the belongings of the complainant were lying. Another witness PW-19 - Prabhu Ram was also produced. He corroborated that the possession was of the complainant. However, he is the relative of the complainant. One other witness PW-13 Bhubha Ram was produced. Bhubha Ram was stated to be the eye-witness but was declared hostile. Basti Ram was also stated to be the eye-witness. He was examined as PW-16. He too turned hostile. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was stated by them that the land was in the possession of the accused persons. There was a dispute regarding the land in question with PW-10 - Patu and PW-15 - Kaku. A civil dispute was also pending before the Board of Revenue. The ownership was also in dispute. Thus, the issue herein involves around the possession and not the title. It is admitted by the original owners Kaku and Patu that they were not in possession over the land in question since the last 13-15 years. Kaku appeared as PW-15 and Patu appeared as PW-10. It is specifically stated by PW-10 - Patu in her cross-examination that they were never able to get the possession from Jagat Singh, etc. Jagat Singh had taken.the possession after the death of their father. Thereafter, Jagat Singh never allowed them to enter the land, it is further admitted by her that after the sale of the land to the complainant, she never went to the land to hand over the possession to the complainant. It is further admitted by her that they never visited the land to get the possession for the complainant. It is admitted by her that there was a land dispute between Jagat Singh etc. and her before the Revenue Court. A statement to the same effect was made by Kaku - PW-15 as well. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant purchased the land in question from Kaku and Patu. From the statement of these witnesses, it is clear that they have not said a single word with respect to the giving of possession of the land in question to the complainant. In fact, Kaku stated that the accused never allowed her even to enter the land. Thus, this falsifies the statement of the witnesses PW-17 and PW-27 i.e. the Revenue Inspector and Investigating Officer. The warrants of possession were therefore only symbolic. It appears that the actual possession was never handed over to Patu and Kaku. In case the possession was not with Patu and Kaku, the question of handing over the possession further to the complainant, does not arise. This is further evidence from the order dated 20.8.2002 vide which the application of the complainant to enter mutation in the name of the complainant, was dismissed. This fact is admitted. The mutation could not be entered in the name of the complainant as the possession was not with the complainant at that point of time. Thus, the complainant has not been able to prove his possession. The original owners who are the material witnesses have not supported his stand qua possession. If the accused persons are in possession, then the appreciation of the evidence in this perspective shows that the incident, if at all, has not occurred the way, it has been projected. Moreover, the alleged eye-witness of the incident Basti Ram turned hostile. The story is probably the other way around. The incident may have occurred when the complainant tried to dispossess the accused persons. The prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations beyond doubt. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Jalore in Sessions Case No. 5/2005 is hereby set aside. The appellant is, accordingly, acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(l)(v) SC and ST Act. Appeal allowed. ;