BHARATHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four accused in C. C. No. 56 of 1961 have been convicted under S. 379, 447, 427 and 34, IPC. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each by the Second Class Magistrate, Adoor. An appeal to the local Sub divisional Magistrate was unsuccessful. Hence they have moved this court in revision to set aside their conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the two brothers accused 1 and 2 owners of Kodandayathu Purayidom with two servants accused 3 and 4 trespassed into the above-mentioned purayidom on 1-8-1960 at about 6 A. M. and harvested the entire crops and removed the tapioca, yam etc. and also destroyed a few newly planted tapioca stems, plantains and pepper-vines. pw. 1 alleges that he was in possession of the property as the lessee for over eight years and the accused who failed in their efforts to evict him by peaceful means trespassed into the property and did the above acts. It seems that pw. 1 came to know of the occurrence only on 2 81960 when he returned from Trivandrum where be had gone to meet the Inspector general of Police with one of his lawyer friends, pw. 7, to complain about the threatened forcible dispossession.

(3.) ANOTHER equally well merited objection is that there is no independent appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses but just a mere mechanical narration of it. The only references to the evidence of witnesses made in the judgment are (1) pws. 2 to 4 and 6 are independent witnesses who swear in terms of the prosecution case and (2) it has neither been brought out in the evidence nor at least suggested that pws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are either interested in the prosecution or prejudiced against the accused. These sweeping statements indicate that the learned Magistrate has not taken care to go through their evidence. pw. 3 the wife of pw. 1 is practically another complainant. pws. 4 and 5 are the co-accused with the complainant in the criminal case filed by the accused about the self-same incident. pw. 5 is also the nephew of pw. 7 the lawyer friend of pw. 1 and another co-accused. pw. 4 is also a relation of the complainant. I am not commenting upon the evidence of these witnesses, but these facts are mentioned just to indicate that the facts are not correctly appreciated. In view of the disposal I propose to make, I purposely refrain from making any embarrassing comments on the evidence of witnesses or the merits of the case.