Karra Ram Reddy vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Pp
2023 Latest Caselaw 2317 Tel

         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

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

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

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.

10 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