POULOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been found guilty under S.353, I.P.C. is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The facts proved by the prosecution and found by the Courts below are that the village officer and two of his assistants, P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4, went to the disputed property to evict the petitioner's father, who was in possession of Government puramboke land as a trespasser. The accused, the son, rushed to the scene brandishing a spade. The revenue officers left the scene, sought police aid, came later and evicted the persons who had trespassed. On these findings, the Courts below found that the accused was guilty; but considering his age, antecedents, the gravity of the offence etc., admonished him under S.3, Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for a reappreciation of the entire evidence contending that the finding arrived at by the Courts below is perverse and that the petitioner is entitled to acquittal, I am not inclined, sitting in revision, to reappraise the evidence.