NATARAJAN Vs. PERIASAMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, in C.C. No. 367 of 1989 for the alleged offences under Sections 147 and 435 read with Sec. 149 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused who are owning land adjacent to the land of the complainant PW-1 had deliberately set fire to his Sugar cane leaves in his land for the purpose of destroying the coconut trees and plaintain trees in the land of the complainant. PWs 1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and these witnesses have spoken that the accused set fire to the dried sugar cane leaves heaped close to the coconut trees and the plaintain trees of the complainant and when these trees were burnt and PW-1 attempted to sprinkle water on the trees, the accused threatened him to cut his hand even if a drop of water came to their land and therefore PW-1 could not pour water to the plaintain trees and coconut trees on account of which there was damage to his crops to the extent of Rs. 25,000.00 PW-1 and PW-2 are husband and wife and PW-3 is said to be the owner of an adjoining land. All these three witnesses have spoken that these accused persons deliberately set fire to the dried sugar cane leaves and the burning of the sugarcane leaves, was spread to the entire extent with the object of destroying the coconut trees in the land of the complainant. But on a perusal of the photographs, which are marked as M.Os. 2 to 4, I am able to see that the coconut trees have been raised by the complainant in the ridge between the land of the accused and the complainant, few plantain trees also stand in the same ridge in between the two lands. In one of the Photographs, I am able to see that the sugar cane leaves have been burnt in the entire stretch of the accused land. PW-1 in his evidence has admitted that it is a practise among the cane growers to set fire to their land for the purpose of burning the stems in the land after cutting of the sugar cane crops. As the sugar cane crop will be cut leaving a small stem projecting over the earth, naturally for destroying those stems, the cane growers will have to burn their land with the sugar cane leaves, otherwise it will be very difficult to plough the land for raising the next crops. Anyhow, it is brought out in the evidence that the agriculturist, who cut the sugar cane crops, has to necessarily to burn his land with sugar cane leaves for removing the stems projecting over the land. In this case, admittedly, the accused had raised sugar cane crops and therefore they had, to resort to this practise of burning the sugar cane stumps with the sugar cane leaves. When that operation was carried out, naturally, the heat of the burning leaves may affect the trees or crops standing in the adjacent land. In this case, as coconut trees have been raised in the ridge in between the two lands, naturally the burning of the sugar cane leaves may affect the coconut trees or the plantain trees in the land of the complainant. But it cannot be stated that the burning of the sugar cane leaves in the land of the accused was intended only for destroying or damaging the plantain and coconut trees of the complainant, the complainant might have anticipated these problems as the accused were raising the sugar cane crops in their lands. Further, I find from the photographs M.Os. 2 to 4 that the coconut trees have not been burnt by the burning of the sugar cane leaves. Only in some of the trees, the coconut leaves are hanging from the top. But they do not spear to have been burnt by the fire in the land of the accused. As mentioned above, even if these hanging leaves of the coconut tree were burnt it is inevitable because when the agricultural operation of destroying the Stumps of the sugar cane in the land of the raised was carried out, the dried hanging eaves of the coconut tree might have been lightly burnt and it is inevitable. Even though the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is that these raised persons deliberately heaped the sugar cane leaves under the coconut trees, the holographs do not support that allegation and I find that the land of the accused has been uniformly burnt throughout for the purpose of a moving the stumps in the land. Therefore, relearned Magistrate has taken the view that there is no mens rea in the conduct of the reused and they could not be punished for the offence alleged. From the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate, it cannot be stated at this view of the learned Magistrate is erroneous. I find no patent error or mistake of law in the finding of the learned Magistrate. Under these circumstances, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the order of acquit-i Hence, the revision is not sustainable.

(3.) In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Petition dismissed.