MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defacto complainant in a prosecution under S.143, 147, 447 and 506(1) read with 149 I.P.C. is the revision petitioner herein. He claims to be aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of 6 out of 8 accused persons who faced trial.

(2.) Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant about two months after the incident took place. The alleged incident took place on 29.6.1990. Ext. P1 complaint was filed on 23.8.1990. The accused were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly who in prosecution of their common object allegedly trespassed into one cent of land allegedly in the possession of PW. 1 and put up a fence. By putting up of such fence six coconut trees in a line which allegedly stood within the property of PW. 1 were annexed to the property of the accused. The accused and PW. 1 admittedly own adjacent properties.

(3.) Cognisance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the investigating officer. The accused denied the offences alleged against them and thereupon prosecution examined PW. 1 to 6 and proved Ext. P1 to P11. The accused denied all the allegations against them. They took the stand that they had not trespassed into PW. 1's property or annexed any portion thereof. According to him, the disputed one cent of land with six coconut trees standing thereon was and always had been in their possession. In these circumstances, they denied all the allegations which were raised against them. No defence witness was examined. Ext. D1 to D4 were marked.