IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.77 OF 2006 Between: Mallika Bee and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.77 OF 2006 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed against the judgment, dated 09.01.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2002, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioners/A1 and A2 of the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for each of the offence, recorded in the judgment, dated 28.06.2002, in C.C.No.686 of 1998, on the file of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: PW.1/de facto complainant was having a civil dispute with the accused regarding the house property bearing D.No.478 situated at Kummarathopu Street, Tirupati. On 15.07.1998, PW.4, Court Amin, with the assistance of police handed over the possession of the disputed property to PW.1 and since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. On 25.08.1998 at about 11:00 AM, both the accused trespassed into the disputed house by breaking open the locks. When PWs.1 and 2 questioned the high handedness of the accused, both the accused beat them with hands. PW.1 lodged a complaint, basing on which police registered a case. Police examined the injured and sent them to the hospital. They observed the scene of occurrence. After completion of investigation, 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 323 I.P.C., they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 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 and reported no oral evidence, but Ex.D-1 was got marked on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. As the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 427 I.P.C., the trial Court acquitted the accused for the said offence. On appeal, the said convictions and sentences were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are so many discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, which will go to the root of the prosecution case; that the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that none of the findings is shown to be illegal or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, or illegal or improper, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, or admissible evidence was overlooked, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 10. Through process of Court, the disputed house in question was taken into possession by PW.1/de facto complainant. PW.4, who is the Court amin, delivered the possession to PW.1. When it was locked, both the petitioners/A1 and A2 broke open the locks and entered into the disputed house. When PWs.1 and 2 questioned the high handedness of the petitioners, they beat PW.1. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1, who is the injured witness. There is no other reason for her to speak false against the petitioners, who are closely related to her. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. She is wholly truthful witness. 11. Whoever enters into the property of another with an intention to cause annoyance to the owner is an offence punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. Similarly, whoever voluntarily causes hurt to another is an offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. Whereas, Section 427 I.P.C. relates to causing mischief to the property of another. 12. The evidence of PW.1 is very clear that both the petitioners trespassed into the disputed house and caused injuries to PW.1. But, the evidence of PW.1 does not indicate about the mischief caused by the petitioners and therefore, they were rightly acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 427 I.P.C. None of the findings are shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the convictions recorded by the trial Court against the petitioners, which were confirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, convictions of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 I.P.C. are confirmed. 13. With regard to the sentence, as the incident had taken place more than a decade back; PW.1/de facto complainant died and the petitioners are closely related to her. At this point of time, it is not desirable to impose substantive sentence of imprisonment. Instead, they can be sentenced to pay fine. Therefore, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months is set aside, but both the petitioners/A1 and A2 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each for each of the offence. Out of the said amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW.2. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification of sentence. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 03, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.77 OF 2006 September 03, 2010