Karnataka High Court
Sri Ranjan Hegde vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
CRL.RP No. 721 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.721 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RANJAN HEGDE
S/O DEVAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
HOSAMANE, KATAPADI
YENAGUDDE VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI
KARNATAKA -576 101.
2. SRI MAHESH HEGDE
S/O DEVAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HOSAMANE, KATAPADI
YENAGUDDE VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI
KARNATAKA-576 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H. JAYANTH POOJARY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY KAUP POLICE STATION
UDUPI
KARNATAKA-570 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P.)
***
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
CRL.RP No. 721 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-4-2015 IN CRL.A. NO.55/2013
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI, AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED IN
C.C. NO.4014/2010 DATED 8-4-2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 15-12-2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri H. Jayanth Poojary, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, and
Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed
this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short,
'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction
and order on sentence dated 8-4-2013 passed by the II
Additional Civil judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Udupi, in Criminal Case No.4014 of 2010 and confirmed by
the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, in Criminal Appeal
No.55 of 2013 dated 25-4-2015, wherein both the Courts
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
below passed concurrent findings against the petitioners
and convicted them for the offences punishable under
Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC').
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent is
the complainant-State.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
8-8-2010 at about 1:00 p.m., PW1-Laxmana Poojary
lodged a complaint alleging that on 7-8-2010 at about
11.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed
into the disputed land bearing Survey No.60/4 BP 13
measuring 0.43 cents situated at Yenagudde Village,
Udupi, and destroyed the paddy crops planted by him by
running a bulldozer and on questioning, they told that the
dispute is pending before the Land Tribunal and the said
land belongs to them and also they gave life threat to him
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
and thereby, caused mischief to him. Hence, this led to
registration of the F.I.R. and investigation.
5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial Court took
cognizance, framed the charge against accused Nos.1
and 2. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all,
examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got
marked sixteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. For the
defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.
7. Assessing the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution proved its case and accordingly, convicted
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2
were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and they
were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each
for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC
with default imprisonment.
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court,
accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the First
Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed
by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings
passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision
petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1
and 2 has contended that the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by both the Courts below is
against the settled principles of law; both the Courts below
have failed to understand and appreciate the provisions of
law as required under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. It
is contended that the complainant-CW1 has not stepped
into a witness box to prove the contents of the complaint.
PW1, being the son of CW1, has stated about the contents
of the complaint and the complaint has been marked
through PW1. It is contended that as per the complaint
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
dated 8-8-2010, paddy crops have been destroyed by
running the bulldozer, but the contents of the charge-
sheet discloses that accused Nos.1 and 2 used tiller to
destroy the paddy crops and as per spot mahazar, JCB has
been used to destroy the paddy crops and as per the
contents of the complaint, a tractor has been used for
destroying the paddy crops. Hence, there are
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses and contents of the complaint, charge-sheet and
spot-mahazar. Such contradictions do not prove the guilt
of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the trial Court failed to appreciate that accused
Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the land in question and
there is civil dispute pending before the Land Tribunal and
before this Court and hence, the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court ought to have acquitted accused Nos.1
and 2 on these grounds. The Courts below have failed to
appreciate that when the exclusive possession of the
disputed land by the complainant itself is not proved and
the land is admittedly disputed one, then the question of
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
trespassing the disputed land does not arise. Further, the
Courts below have failed to appreciate that PW1 is a son of
the complainant (CW1). PW2 is a friend of the complainant
and PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the relatives of the complainant,
who are all interested witnesses and their oral testimonies
cannot be believed. It is further contended that seizure of
the material, either bulldozer/JCB/tractor/tiller which is
alleged to have been used for crime, has not been proved
before the trial Court. Further, none of the independent
witness has stated about the manner of seizure of the
vehicle and none of them has stated about the incident. It
is further contended that the dispute between the parties
is purely civil in nature, however, it has been given a
criminal texture. On all these grounds, he prays to allow
the revision petition.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State has contended that both the Courts
below have given concurrent findings and convicted
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. The prosecution
witnesses have clearly stated about the role played by
accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they destroying paddy crops in
the disputed land by running the bulldozer and caused loss
to the complainant. He has further contended that the trial
Court has merely imposed fine and not awarded any
sentence of imprisonment against accused Nos.1 and 2.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
11. On the basis of the submissions made by the
parties to the lis, the following point arises for
consideration of the Court:
Whether the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court is
perverse and calls for any interference by this
Court?
12. As per the case of the prosecution, accused
Nos.1 and 2 destroyed paddy crops by running the
bulldozer in the disputed land and thereby, caused loss to
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
the complainant. In order to establish this aspect, the
prosecution examined PW1, son of the complainant (CW1)
and he is an eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that
criminally trespassed into the disputed land bearing
Survey No.60/4 BP 13 measuring 0.43 cents situated at
Yenagudde Village, Udupi, destroyed the paddy crops by
running the bulldozer and caused loss to the tune of
Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the complainant (CW1) and PWs.2
to 5 questioned the act of accused Nos.1 and 2. Thus,
they threatened the complainant and PW1 to eliminate
them. Hence, his father (CW1) lodged the complaint as
per Ex.P1. He further stated that the Police conducted
mahazar as per the Ex.P9 and took photographs as per
Exs.P2 to P6 of the scene of offence. PWs.2 to 5 are
eyewitnesses to the incident. They have reiterated the
evidence of PW1. PW6, owner of the tiller, which is used
for destroying the paddy crops, turned hostile to the case
of the prosecution. PW7, witness to spot mahazar-Ex.P9,
has stated that the Police conducted spot mahazar in the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
land of the complainant. PWs.8 and 9, witnesses to
seizure mahazar (Ex.P10), have turned hostile to the case
of the prosecution. PW10-Sub-Inspector of Police received
the complaint, registered the same in Crime No.177 of
2010, visited the spot, conducted mahazar, enquired the
witnesses and recorded their statements and seized the
tiller and after completion of the investigation, filed the
charge-sheet against the accused. PW11-Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police seized the tiller under Ex.P15 and took
photographs as per Exs.P2 to P6.
13. From the perusal of the material, it appears that
PWs.1 to 5 are eyewitnesses to the incident and they have
clearly stated on 7-8-2010 at 11:00 p.m., accused Nos.1
and 2 brought the tiller to the land of the complainant and
destroyed the paddy crops and thus, caused damage. It is
the contention of the learned counsel for accused Nos.1
and 2 that PWs.3 to 5 are relatives of the complainant and
they are interested witnesses.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of HARI RAM v.
STATE OF U.P. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 146 held that,
"the evidence of related witnesses and their credibility has
to be considered. In case of interested witness, foundation
has to be laid, if plea of false implication is made, then in
such case, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and
analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and
credible".
15. The incident occurred during night and tiller had
no head light. From the perusal of the photographs, the
paddy crops have been damaged with the help of tiller.
Mahazar witnesses have clearly stated about drawing up of
the mahazar under Ex.P9 and nothing has been placed on
record by accused Nos.1 and 2 to discredit the oral
testimonies of PWs.1 to 5. It is contented that the
prosecution has failed to prove the contents of Sections
447 and 427 of the IPC.
16. Section 447 of the IPC deals with 'whoever
commits criminal trespass shall be punished with
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees, or with both."
17. Section 427 of the IPC deals with 'whoever
commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to
the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'
18. In the instant case, the prosecution is able to
prove the fact that on 7-8-2010, accused Nos.1 and 2
brought the tiller and destroyed the paddy crops in the
presence of PWs.1 to 5. Evidence of the prosecution is
based on eyewitnesses account. Evidence of the
prosecution witnesses inspires confidence of the Court that
accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offences alleged
against them. The trial Court imposed fine of Rs.500/-
each on accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable
under Section 447 of the IPC and Rs.5,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC and more
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
particularly, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court have not imposed any sentence of imprisonment
against accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, looking into any
angle, there is no merit in the contention of accused Nos.1
and 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for accused
Nos.1 and 2, for these reasons, cannot be accepted and
therefore, this revision petition fails and it is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
i. The revision petition is dismissed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 8-4-2013 passed by the II Additional Civil judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi, in Criminal Case
No.4014 of 2010 and confirmed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Udupi, in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2013 dated
25-4-2015 are hereby upheld.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1972
Registry is directed to send the trial Court record
along with a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
