IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1261 OF 2004 BETWEEN:
Valluri Deevanraju and others AND …. Petitioners State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1261 OF 2004 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the petitioners – accused against the judgment dated 23-06-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC was confirmed and the sentence of the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC and also fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC as recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, vide Judgment dated 14-06-2002 in C.C. No.37 of 1998 was modified and converted into fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each offence and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows:
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 - A-1 and A-2 are the wife and husband and petitioner No.3 – A-3 is their son. The de facto complainant – PW- 1 owned a house bearing D.Nos.24-1-50, 51, 52 and 53 in Kammavari Savaram within the limits of Ramachandrapuram Municipality. On 30-06-1997 at about 8-00 AM, all the accused criminally trespassed into the house being armed with deadly weapons and broke the southern side compound wall and threw away the household articles such as chairs, cots etc., and created havoc and caused damage to the properties to a tune of Rs.20,000/-. The de facto complainant – PW-1 lodged a compliant with the police and the police inspected the premises, observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and also took photographs of the scene of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet.
3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11.
5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any witness but got marked Exs.D-1 to D-7.
6. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material available on record, found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced as above. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence as above. Challenging the same, the present revision.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A-1 and A-2 purchased the property from the original owner, a Christian Missionary i.e. CBCNC; that there are civil suits pending between PW- 1 and the accused; that when there is bona fide dispute with regard to title, the question of trespass and causing mischief, does not arise and the title and possession of the parties have to be resolved by the competent Civil Court and till then it is difficult for the Criminal Court to arrive at a conclusion that PW-1 was in exclusive possession of the property and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of PW-1 is very clear with regard to the accused trespassing into his house by demolishing the southern side compound wall; that PW-6 Village Administrative Officer, Ramachandrapuram inspected the scene of occurrence and observed the same in the presence of PWs-2 and 3 and prepared Ex.P-9 report, which would clearly go to show that there was damage to the compound wall and both the Courts below have rightly found the accused guilty of the offences and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same and prays to dismiss the revision.
9. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper ?
10. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 IPC are truncated. Unless it is shown that any one of the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court is perverse or not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence is overlooked, ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
11. Admittedly, there are civil suits pending between PW-1 and the accused. A-1 said to have purchased the property in 1988 from a Christian Missionary. The accused filed O.S.No.113 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram for recovery of property in question. Similarly, PW-1 also filed a suit in O.S. No.81 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
12. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the possession of the house is in dispute, the question of trespass under Section 447 does not arise. The evidence of PW-1 would go to show that he purchased the property from CBCNC under a registered sale deed dated 05-06-1997. The only question is whether PW-1 is in possession of the property or the accused are in possession of the property. Admittedly, accused have not filed any document to show about their possession as on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-1 would go to show that he was in possession of the property. PWs-2 and 3, who are the eyewitnesses, also clearly stated in their evidence that the accused trespassed into the house of PW-1 by demolishing the southern side compound wall. The fact of demolition of the southern side compound wall of the house of PW-1 is evidencing from Exs.P-3 to P-8 and is coupled with Ex.P-9 scene of observation report drafted by PW-6. Even assuming for a moment that the accused were in possession of the property, there is no need for them to demolish the compound wall. The trial Court specifically observed that the accused have not filed any document to show about their possession over the property as on the date of incident. Further more, the accused have filed a suit for recovery of possession against PW-1, which suggests that PW-1 was in possession of the property and they tried to enter into the premises of PW-1 by demolishing the compound wall. Therefore, the findings of the appellate Court are in accordance with law. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
1 3 . Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 23-06-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.
K.C. BHANU, J June 24, 2010 KTL