Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused persons, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.207 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur has come up in revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 11.02.2000 at 2.00 p.m., the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and each of them with the knowledge that they are members of the assembly, committed criminal trespass into the property of PW8 and attempted to remove the timber cut unlawfully in a tractor. While PW1, who was the care-taker of PW8, obstructed the accused persons from removing the timber by blocking the pathway, they damaged a bullock cart and motor cycle belonged to PW1. Thereby the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the acquittal of the accused persons is unsustainable in law.
5. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs 1 to 8.
PW1 is the care-taker of PW8. According to his testimony, the accused persons unlawfully cut and removed timber in a tractor and on seeing this, he blocked the pathway by placing a bullock cart and a motor cycle. He questioned the act of the accused. At that time, the accused persons threatened him to be done away with. Thereafter, they pushed the bullock cart and motor cycle down into a paddy field causing extensive damages. This witness was cross-examined by the defence counsel. It is come out in evidence that there was some dispute regarding a right of way through which the tractor was taken. It is relevant to note in this context that there is no charge for theft levelled against the accused persons. What is alleged is the commission of mischief and criminal trespass by the members of an unlawful assembly. PW2 was working in the land belonging to PW8 at the material time. He supported the version of PW1. But, it is come out in evidence through this witness as well that there was a dispute regarding the right of way between the parties. PW3 is another witness to the incident. He also spoke in terms with PWs 1 and 2. PW4 is the Village Officer who issued Ext.P2 certificate to show that the land through which the way was proceeding belonged to PW8. PW5 is a witness to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW6 recorded Ext.P1 first information statement and registered Ext.P1(a) first information report. PW7 is the Investigating Officer. PW8 who is the owner of the property supported the version of PW1 to some extent. He also admitted that a civil case was pending with regard to the cart track. The court below disbelieved the prosecution case for the reason that there is no material to find the alleged criminal trespass. Further, it was found that there is no evidence brought in by the prosecution to show the extent and degree of the damages caused in the alleged act of mischief. On evaluation of the entire evidence, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the court below. The revision is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks