ALLAPPA NINGAPPA MUGALKHOD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by four persons namely Allalappa Ningappa Mugalkhod (A1), Ninrappa Allalappa Mugalkhod (A2) Mallappa Basappa Hippargi(A3) and Balasab Dastagirsab Yadwad(A4), who have been convicted by the Principal Munsiff and JMFC., Jamkhandi under S.325 read with S.34 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Irayya Rachayya Navalgi and further convicted A3 Mallappa Basappa Hippargi for an offence under S.325 IPC. for causing grievous hurt to Mallawa Rachayya Navalagi and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The said convictions and sentences have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused persons trespassed into R.S. Nos.239/1 and 240/1A of Chimmad village belonging to one Gurupadappa Gunaki, which were being cultivated for number of years by Irayya Rachayya Navalagi as a tenant, and assaulted PWs.l to 4 causing them injuries.

(3.) So far as the case of the prosecution that the accused persons committed criminal trespass on the lands in question, the prosecution, as held by the learned Magistrate, have not proved that the lands in question were in possession of PW.1 on 31-8-1969. the date on which the incident took place. The lands in question belonged to one Gurupadappa Gunaki. The case of the prosecution was that PW.1 was the tenant of Gurupadappa Gunaki for a number of years and on the date of the incident also he was his tenant. On this profit the prosecution have failed to prove that PW.1 was a tenant of Gurupadappa Gunaki at anv time, more so on the date of the incident. During the course of his evidence, PW.1 has admitted that the names of Accused 1 and one Mahadevappa Hatti had been entered in the revenue records in respect of these two R.S.Numbers and in respect of the entry of the names of Accused 1 and Mahadevappa Hatti he had filed an appeal. It is also in evidence that Gurupadappa Gunaki had filed a suit against PW.1 and had obtained an order of temporary injunction in respect of these two R.S. numbers. The prosecution has no doubt tried to make out that, by the time the incident took place the order of temporary injunction had been vacated. Except the oral statements of PW.1 and some of the witnesses to this effect, no satisfactory material was plated to show that the order of temporary injunction had been vacated and that PW.1 was in possession or. the date in question. On the other hand, the accused have placed incontrovertible evidence through documents to show that A1 and one Mahadevappa Hatti were in possession of the two lands in question.