THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.797 of 2012
ORDER:
1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 24.05.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2012 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Warangal, confirming the judgment dated 31.12.2011 in C.C.No.691 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangaon, wherein and whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 427, 434 and 447 IPC and convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 427 IPC, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 434 IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 447 IPC. In default of payment of fine under each count, the petitioner is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for each of the default.
2 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.11. On behalf of the petitioner 2 the petitioner himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked EXs.D.1 and D.2 on his behalf.
3 The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner kept hay stock in the land of P.W.1 and failed to remove the same and thereupon P.W.1, with the help of the revenue officials got inspected the lands in Sy.No.179 and 180 and fixed the boundaries. The petitioner removed the said boundary pegs also and abused P.W.1 in filthy language as such, P.W.1 filed the complaint.
4 The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.Ws.2 to 5 on all material aspects. The evidence of P.W.6 who is Mandal Surveyor is that on the application of P.W.1 he surveyed the lands and demarcated in Sy.Nos.149, 179 and 180 of Lingampally village. It is his further evidence that the lands in Sy.Nos.149, 179 and 180 belong to P.W.1. He came to know through the Mandal Revenue Officer that the boundaries fixed by him earlier were disturbed by the petitioner and as such he again fixed the boundaries to the lands of P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 is also on the same lines as that of P.W.6. Their evidence is to the effect of preparing panchanama at the lands of P.W.1 and the petitioner. P.W.9 deposed that he went to the lands of P.W.1 and observed the 3 damaged condition of fencing pillars. He subscribed his signature on Ex.P.3 scene of offence panchanama. P.W.10- Tahsildar deposed that on receipt of complaint from P.W.1 stating that boundary stones were removed, he visited the site on 06.12.2006 along with Village Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Inspector and village elders and observed that boundary stones are removed. The Additional Revenue Inspector drafted panchanama in his presence and fixed boundaries.
5 The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, have concurrently held that the lands in Sy.Nos.149, 179 and 180 belong to P.W.1 and that the petitioner kept his hay stock in the said land. 6 The evidence of the officials of the revenue department shows that the lands in Sy.Nos.149, 179 and 180 belong to P.W.1 and the revenue officials fixed the boundary stones by demarcating the lands of P.W.1 and the petitioner removed them. All the prosecution witnesses have in one voice stated that the petitioner damaged the pillars fixed by P.W.6. 7 The ownership and possession of P.W.1 over the subject lands was established by cogent and concrete evidence. So the 4 action of the petitioner in placing his hay stock in the land of P.W.1 would certainly comes under Section 447 IPC. Since the caused damage to the pillars fixed by the revenue officials, the same would also come under Section 434 IPC and since the damage is more than Rs.50/- the petitioner can be said to have committed the offence under Section 427 IPC.
8 Both the Courts have concurrently held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 434 and 447 IPC and accordingly convicted him for the said offences. I see no irregularity much less any illegality in the judgments passed by the courts below and hence no interference is warranted in this revision. Accordingly the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.
9 However, with regard to the quantum of sentence, the offence is of the year 2007. The appellate Court pronounced its judgment on 24.05.2012 and it was only after this Court granting bail on 30.05.2012, the petitioner came out of the jail. So obviously the petitioner must have been in jail for about a week. Therefore, in view of the mental agony and trauma faced by this petitioner, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is concerned.
510 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Except the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. 11 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.
__________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dt:13.09.2023 Kvsn