HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1609 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014.
Between:
Vadde Annadurai Reddy and another.
..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.1609 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is filed against judgment dated 21-9- 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet whereunder judgment dated 9-6-2005 in C.C.No.758 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, Nalgonda is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 9-11-2002, the revision petitioners herein and another (A.3) demolished feeder channel called as “kattu kalwa” flowing from S.No.315 over a length of 250 meters with the help of ACB proclainer. The said irrigation channel is the source of water to Vattecheruvu in Mamidala village used for irrigation by surrounding formers besides using the water for drinking purpose. The said feeder channel is in existence for the last 50 years which is reflected in village map but accused in high handed manner removed the channel together with bunds due to which water source to Vatticheruvu is taken away and right of way to the schedule tribe persons of Kokya Thanda hamlet of Mamidala village was also taken away and thereby, accused committed offence under Section 430 I.P.C. In the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 9 are examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioners and the other accused guilty for the offence under Section 430 I.P.C. and sentenced revision petitioners to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and sentenced the other accused A.3 with fine of Rs.3,000/- in view of his health condition and old age. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, A.1 and A.2, i.e., revision petitioners herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2005 to the court of Sessions, Nalgonda and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the judgments of courts below, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that P.Ws.3, 5 to 7 are not direct witnesses and during enquiry conducted by P.W.1, nobody stated anything against the revision petitioners but the courts below convicted the revision petitioners. It is further contended that P.Ws.5 to 7 are residing nearer to the place of incident and they have not stated anything against the revision petitioners but in spite of that, courts below accepted the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.
5. According to the revision petitioners, both the courts erred in not considering the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and conviction imposed against them is mechanical.
6. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the courts below have rightly convicted the revision petitioners and that there is ample evidence against the revision petitioners.
7. 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?
8. POINT:
According to prosecution, the revision petitioners demolished feeder channel called “kattu Kalwa” to an extent of 250 meters whereas the plea of the accused is total denial. Out of nine witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 3 are official witnesses i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer, Surveryor and Revenue Inspector at the relevant point of time. P.W.4 is the sarpanch of Mamidala village. P.Ws.5 to 7 are the eye witnesses.
9. P.W.5 deposed that on the date of incident at about 11 P.M., residents of Kokya Thanda approached him and informed about the highhanded act of A.1, on that he rushed to the scene of occurrence and found A.1 to A.3 getting the channel bund removed with a proclainer. He further deposed that when he questioned the highhanded act of the accused, they gave adamant reply and on that they reported the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalagiri.
10. P.W.6 deposed that on the date of incident at about 11 P.M., when he was proceeding along with some of the villagers to their lands through canal bund, they noticed A.1 to A.3 damaging the canal bund leading to Vottecheruvu with a proclainer. P.W.7 deposed in the same lines as stated by P.W.5.
11. Now the objection of the revision petitioners that P.Ws.5 to 7 have not stated anything against them cannot be accepted in view of the fact that all the three clearly stated that they noticed revision petitioners and another removing canal bund with the help of proclainer. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the officials and evidence of P.W.4 sarpanch of Mamidala village do disclose that accused have cut the bund of channel with proclainer at the feeder channel to some extent which was leading to Vattekunta cheruvu.
12. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the revision petitioners and their father (A.3) have damaged feeder canal called as “kattu kalwa” with the help of proclainer during night time which attracts the offence under Section 430 I.P.C. Though revision petitioners contended that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, on a verification of evidence, it is clear that there are no such omissions or contradictions which will affect the material part of evidence. Both the courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to right conclusion. Both the courts have not committed any error or any illegality in accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The reasoning given for the findings by both the courts is not perverse and on the other hand, they are with sound reasoning. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court confirmed by the appellate court is absolutely correct.
13. For these reasons, it is held that the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-1-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1609 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014.