A CHINNASAMY Vs. KARUPPUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.203 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

(2.) THE complainant in C.C.No.203 of 2001 is the revision petitioner herein. According to the prosecution, the accused have trespassed into the land of P.W.1/revision petitioner herein in survey No.75/2, Natham Poramboke measuring 9 cents with deadly weapons on 27.4.2001 at about 11.00.a.m., and tried to evacuate P.W.1 from the said Natham Poramboke land and that the accused at the time of occurrence have also abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Hence A1 to A14 were charged under Sections 148,448,294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and A15 to A18 were charged under Sections 148 r/w 109 and 448 r/w 109, 294(b) r/w 109 and 506(ii) r/w 109 of IPC.

(3.) P.W.1 is the complainant Chinnasamy. Even though he was not treated as a hostile witness, in his evidence before the trial Court, he will give a go by to what he has stated regarding the facts in Ex P1 complaint. As P.W.1, he would state that only A2, A16, A18 and A1 came with dangerous weapons like crowbar and aruval and that they dug a pit in the place where the road has been formed and that in this connection, there is a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court and he would depose before the Court that the accused have threatened him to roast him in fire, if he failed to vacate the land in which he is in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 35 years which is situate on the east of his house at Kannuvelampalayam Village. According to him, one Periasamy, Muthuvel and Ponnusamy are all eye witnesses. But no eye witness was examined in this case. So the evidence of P.W1 is diametrically opposite to the facts, he has stated in his complaint Ex P1. 5a) P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, who would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the fact that the accused have obstructed for laying a road near the place of occurrence. P.W.3 would depose that on the date of occurrence, the accused Karuppusamy, Palani along with other accused came there with deadly weapons like Aruval, Log and Crowbar and tried to put up huts. Even though, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence, according to P.W.1, he would say that the accused have abused P.W.1 by his caste in filthy language. 5b) P.W.4 would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the fact that the accused have threatened P.W.1 to roast him in fire, if he failed to obey the accused which is not there in ExP1. P.W.5 is also not an eye witness to the occurrence but would corroborate the evidence of P.W.4 to the facts which are not in Ex P1 complaint. 5c) P.W.6 also followed the suit of P.W4 and P.W.5. P.W.7 is the hostile witness. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the mahazar witnesses. 5d) P.W.10 is a Deputy Tahsildar, who would depose that Survey No.75/2 has been assigned in the name of P.W.1 and there was a dispute arose between P.W.1 and the accused in connection with the grant of patta in respect of Survey No.75/2 in the name of P.W.1 and that he gave Ex P3 report to the Inspector of Police, Perunthurai stating that P.W.1 is in possession of Survey No.75/2 which is admittedly a Natham Poramboke land. 5e) P.W.11 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikoil Police Station, who had registered a case on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Ex P1 in Crime No.28 of 2001 against the accused under Sections 147,148,447,294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Ex P4 is the First Information report. 5f) P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer, who had took up investigation, visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar and has drawn Ex P5 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing formalities, P.W.12 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.