STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALORE RURAL POLICE STATION, KULSHEKAR KAIKAMBA, MANGALORE Vs. SRI UPENDRA P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Section 427 IPC on a trial by the JMFC, Mangalore. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: PW1 Smt. D'souza is the owner of the site measuring 10 cents in sy. No. 15/2 of Nejiguri of Padavu village. She had put up a compound wall on the said site. The first respondent is said to be the owner of the land adjoining the site. In the last week of March 2008 the first respondent is said to have dug his land to level it and at that time caused damage to the compound wall, thereby the compound wall collapsed and the complainant is said to have sustained loss to an extent of Rs. 1,60,000/ -. As the police did not register a complaint against the respondents, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate and filed a private complaint and the matter was referred for investigation under Section 156(3). During investigation the mahazars were held. The documents were collected. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and charge sheet came to be filed against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC.

(2.) AS the respondents did not plead guilty, statements of PW1 and 8 were recorded and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents got marked Exs. D1 to D4. The Trial Court after hearing, has acquitted the respondents for the said charge. The judgment and order of acquittal has been challenged in this appeal.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor that PWs.1 and 2 are the witnesses who have spoken with regard to the damage caused by the respondents and as the compound wall collapsed the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents for the said charge.