NARAYANAN Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE six accused persons in C. C. No. 522 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Alathur, who have been convicted under Sections 143, 447, 427 and 434, I. P. C. read with Sections 149 i. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- for each of the offences under sections 143 and 447 I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for offence under section 427 I. P. C. , the conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat, in Crl. A. No. 18 of 1978, are the revision petitioners herein. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 434. I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be summarised as follows : the de facto complainant (P. W. 1) is the owner in possession of properties comprised in R. S. No. 62 (A5) and (A6) and 64 (1) of Kannanoor village within the limits of Koyalmannam Panchayat, the same having been allotted to him under partition (Ext. P. 1 ). A private cart-track belonging to P. W. 1 passes through this property. THE cart-track adjoins the house and the appurtenant building touching threshing floor and a mango garden, tank, etc. , belonging to and in the possession of P. W. 1 and joins the National Highway. THE 1st revision petitioner was then Executive Officer of the Koyalmannam Panchayat and the 2nd revision petitioner, then Bill Collector. THE other revision petitioners are villagers. On 18-5-1977, all these persons came to the cart-track armed with deadly weapons and attempted to widen the cart-track and to remove the fences put up by and certain trees belonging to P. W. 1. On the same day on three or four occasions P. W. 1 complained to the Koyalmannam police and on all occasions the police rushed to the scene and the miscreants withdrew. A case was registered as Crime No. 70 of 1977, as per Ext. P. 2 F. I. R. It was investigated by the S. I. of Police, D. W. 1, who reported it as false. On 19-5-1977 P. W. 1 filed a suit O. S. No. 103 of 1977 before the High Court as per Ext. P3 plaint and obtained an order of injunction restraining the revision petitioners from entering the property etc. Copies of the order on the injunction petition were sent to the concerned persons under Ext. P5 acknowledgments. A commission was issued in the suit. Exts. P9 and P11 are the Commissioner's reports. On 22-5-1977 at about 1 p. m. the revision petitioners as well as 100 others, all armed with deadly weapons came to the pathway, having constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing criminal trespass, mischief etc. , entered the house compound of P. W. 1, destroyed the fence posts on either side of the cart-track, cut and removed branches of certain trees, removed the granite stones paved on the east of the cow-dung pit and the steps to the farm-yard, removed the steps put up between the cart-track and the cattle shed, uprooted the farm-yard gate and planted it about 4 feet inside removed five survey stones from the original places and replanted them nearby, and thereby caused a loss of about Rs. 10,000/- to P. W. 1. THEse acts were done in spite of the protests of P. W. 1. Though the cart-track was P. W. 1's private cart-track he had allowed the public to use it. He complained to the police, a case was registered as Crime No. 77 of 1977 under Ext. P6 F. I. R. Investigation was conducted, by the S. I. of Police, D. W. 1, who prepared Ext D6 scene mahazar. THE case was referred under Ext. P7, as the case is of a civil nature. THEreafter a private complaint was filed by way of protest. In private complaint P. W. 1 alleged that the police did not conduct investigation properly and did not look into the documents and did not question the witnesses.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended before me that there is no dispute that something must have taken place on 22-5-1977, as a result of which some damage might have occurred to the property of P. W. 1, but that there is no convincing evidence to implicate the revision petitioners in the occurrence. He further contended that the testimony of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 is the only evidence connecting the revision petitioners with the occurrence and the testimony is interested, discrepant, conflicting and unacceptable. According to him, the contradictions with reference to the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Crl. P. C. completely destroy the credibility of the witnesses and the two Courts below have ignored this vital circumstance in looking at the evidence. He also complained that the two Courts below have relied on inadmissible evidence and circumstances and also ignored important circumstances emerging from the evidence. On these grounds he seeks to quash the conviction and sentence.