HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.384 OF 2007 Dated 16-4-2014 Between:
Redrowthu Narayanarao and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.384 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is filed against judgment dated 30- 12-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2005 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, whereunder judgment dated 24-3-2005 in C.C.No.85 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghantasala Police Station filed charge sheet against the revision petitioners alleging that on 4-2-2001, revision petitioners damaged black gram crop of P.Ws.1 and 2 through tractor bearing No.A.P.16.T-8164 and trailer No.A.P.16.T-8163 and when they questioned acts of the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners threatened and abused them. On the report of P.Ws.1 and 2, police registered Crime No.8 of 2001 and investigation revealed that the revision petitioners have committed offences under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined nine witnesses and marked eight documents. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of defence. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court convicted the revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 427 and 447 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.700/- each for the offence under Section 427 and a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Krishna at Machilipatnam and IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that there is no proof to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the owners of Ac.2.60 cents of land in R.S.Nos.17 and 36 of Atchampalem and in fact, it is a classified drain poramboke and Donka Poramboke and Government is the owner of said land. He further submitted that de facto complainants have no right or title in respect of the said land and both the courts failed to consider this aspect. He further submitted that earlier P.Ws.1 to 3 filed writ petition before this court in respect of the same land for grant of patta and the said writ petition is dismissed holding that the land in S.Nos.17 and 36 in an extent of Ac.2.60 cents is classified as donka poramboke and pathway poramboke, respectively, and is prohibited for assignment as per the Board Standing Order 15. He further submitted that to punish the revision petitioners for alleged damage caused to the crop of P.Ws.1 and 2, they must establish that they are the owners of the land but when the material on record would show that the land in R.Nos.17 and 36 are Government lands, the question of trespass or causing damage to the crop of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not arise and both the courts have committed error in convicting the revision petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence on record, it is established that P.Ws.1 and 2 raised black gram crop in the disputed land and the revision petitioners damaged black gram crop of P.W.1 through tractor bearing No.A.P.16.T-8164 and trailer No.A.P.16.T-8163 and thereby, committed offences under Sections 427 and 447 I.P.C. and both courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on 4-2-2001, all the accused while carrying their sugar cane crop in a tractor bearing No.A.P.16.T-8164 and trailer No.A.P.16.T-8163 damaged standing black gram raised by P.W.1 and when the same is questioned, they quarreled with P.W.1, abused him in filthy language. To prove the same, complainants are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 is brother of P.W.1 who is an eye witness. P.W.4 is the driver of the tractor and P.W.5 is an eye witness attending to the work of the accused for shifting sugarcane from the fields.
P.W.6 is another eye witness and P.W.7 is the panchayat secretary who acted as mediator for the observation of scene of offence. P.W.8 is Investigating Officer. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he raised black gram crop in an extent of Ac.2.60 cents and on previous years also, he raised the same crop. He further deposed that all the accused trespassed into his land with tractor and damaged black gram crop in his field and as a result, he sustained loss. P.W.2 has also deposed in the same lines and P.W.3 supported and corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
8. The main objection of advocate for revision petitioners is that there is no evidence to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the owners of the land in dispute. This objection is raised before trial court and the appellate court and the learned trial judge after considering evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and evidence of P.W.7, discarded the objection and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the appellate court. Now the same objection is raised here and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The evidence on record would clearly disclose that on the date of incident, all the revision petitioners have damaged the black gram crop raised by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the land in R.S.No.36 of Atchampalem village. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the courts below.
9. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.384 OF 2007 Dated 16-4-2014