THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 OF 2005 DATE: 03.12.2009 Between: Tandra Anjaneyulu and another … Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each, as imposed by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bapatla, by judgment dated 18.12.2003, in C.C.No.89 of 2003, was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2, who is younger brother of A.1 and A.2. P.W.2 purchased an extent of Ac.4.25 cents of land from A.1 for consideration of Rs.55,000/- per acre and paid an amount of Rs.93,000/- towards advance, in the year 1997. Since then, he is cultivating the land with an oral agreement of registering the land in his favour after payment of balance sale consideration. While so, on 02.10.2002 at about 6.00 p.m. when P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to their field, they found A.1 to A.5 ploughing the land by illegally trespassing into it. When P.W.2 objected the same, A.1 to A.5 attacked P.Ws 1 and 2 and A.1 beat P.W.2 with a Thatimatta on the left side of his neck and when P.W.1 went to the rescue of P.W.2, A.2 to A.5 beat P.W.1 with hands and legs indiscriminately and also P.W.2 causing injuries. P.W.3 and another witnessed the incident. On 03.10.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. on receipt of information from the Government Hospital, Bapatla, P.W.4 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and subsequently transferred the case to the S.H.O., Karlapalem Police Station, on the point of jurisdiction. Having received the same, P.W.5 registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2002 and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 r/w 34 IPC before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bapatla. 3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, except Exs.D.1 to D.4 - portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, were marked on their behalf. 4. After hearing both sides, the trial court found A.3 to A.5 not guilty of the offences under Sections 447 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and also found A.1 and A.2 not guilty of the offence under Section 447 IPC, and accordingly acquitted them, but found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated in para No.1, by judgment dated 18.12.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, A.1 and A.2 preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment of the trial court, by judgment dated 31.08.2004. The same is under challenge in this revision case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 and A.2, adverting to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not the owners of the land and they are not in possession of the land, and the trial court gave a finding to that effect, as the prosecution failed to prove the same and accordingly found A.1 to A.5 not guilty of the offence under Section 447 IPC; that the offences under Sections 447 IPC and 324 IPC are inter-connected with each other, therefore, once the trial court acquitted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 447 IPC, it should have also acquitted them for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC; that since the prosecution failed to examine the doctor, who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2, the wound certificates in Exs.P.5 and P.6 cannot be taken into consideration; that the courts below have not taken note of the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2; that the independent witnesses were not cited by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against the accused; that according to the prosecution, if really A.1 to A.5 had attacked P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would have suffered grievous injuries, but as per the evidence of P.W.6, P.Ws. 1 and 2 suffered only simple injuries, which affects the veracity of the prosecution case on that aspect, and therefore, he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the judgments of the courts below. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the concurrent findings of both the courts below need not be interfered with, inasmuch as they are based on the evidence on record. 7. Now, the point for determination is, whether the judgments of the courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed that P.W.2 purchased an extent of Ac.4.25 cents of land from A.1 for consideration in the year 1997 and A.1 handed over possession of the land to them and since then they have been cultivating the land, they have not filed any document to establish the same before the court below. P.W.2 categorically admitted that his brother’s name was shown as owner and possessor of the land till the date of his giving evidence before the court. P.W.5 also stated that P.W.1 did not state before him that she is in possession of the land. Further, P.W.1 during the course of cross examination admitted that she did not state to the police as in Ex.D.1. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5, the trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the owners and possessors of the land in question and hence the ingredients of Section 447 IPC do not attract to the case on hand, and accordingly, found that A.1 to A.5 are entitled for acquittal of the said offence. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences under Sections 447 IPC and 324 IPC are inter- connected, is not acceptable, as both the offences are different from each other. P.W.2 deposed that A.2 pushed and beat him with a stick on the right side of temple region and A.1 beat him with a thatimatta on the right side of neck. P.W.1 also deposed that A.1 beat on her hands with thatimatta and later all the accused beat her indiscriminately with legs and hands causing swelling injury on her head on back side and also bleeding injuries to both hands. The injuries stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 are corresponding to the injuries mentioned in Exs.P.5 and P.6 wound certificates. Though P.Ws. 1 to 5 were cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited from them to contradict the case of the prosecution. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the offence occurred due to sudden or grave provocation of A.1 and A.2 which resulted in injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, it is clear that there are specific overt acts against the petitioners for their committing the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, and none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. In the absence of any illegality in the findings of the courts below, the judgments of the courts below need no interference. 11. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2004. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 3rd December, 2009 cbs THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.133 of 2005 (Dismissed) 3rd December, 2009 CBS