IN RE, MALEPATI SRIHARI RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the 6 accused in C. C. No. 2 of 1960 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Narasaraopeta, who along with others was convicted of offences under Sections 143, 342 and 348, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further term of one month for the offences under Section 348, Indian Penal Code and pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offences under Section 143, Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was given for the offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code in view of sentence already awarded for the offence under Section 143, Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirmed the orders of conviction and maintained the sentences of fine, but reduced the simple imprisonment awarded under Section 348 to one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. A-1 alone has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised in this revision, a brief statement of facts may be necessary. The petitioner is the former husband of the complainant, P. Anasuyamma (P.W. 1). The marriage between the two was dissolved under a decree dated 21-4-1959. Nevertheless, the petitioner under a registered deed dated 4-7-1959 settled certain property on her for her maintenance, even though she herself possessed some property given by her parents at the time of her marriage and which was to art extent of 7 acres of land situate at Tangedumalli and two other villages. As she could not effectively manage her lands, being scattered in various villages, she entered into an agreement for exchange of these lands with one Raghavaiah (P.W. 4). The petitioner and A-5, who is the real brother of the complainant, were averse to this idea and they wanted that the lands should be given to A-5.

(3.) In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the proceedings on more than one ground. It is first urged that the courts below ought to have accepted the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner, for according to him, it gains support in some manner or other even from the statements of P.Ws. 8 and 11. Both the courts below have dealt with this aspect elaborately and found that the plea of alibi cannot be accepted. It is a finding of fact which was arrived at on appraisal of the evidence on record. When both the Courts have concurrently taken a definite view, unless that view is unreasonable or wholly unwarranted by the material on record, it is open to interference. I do think having regard to the discussion in the judgments of the courts below the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner can be accepted.