Janarthanatn vs Ananda Naidu and 17 others and State

V. Bakthavatsalu, J.—This revision is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.18 of 1988. One of the witnesses examined in this case i.e. P.W.3 has filed this revision.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

P.W.3 the revision petitioner is the brother of the deceased Rajendran and P.W. 12 is their aunt. P.Ws 1 to 3 and 12 were residing at Narasingamedu. The accused are also related to each other. Srinivasulu Naidu executed Will in favour of P.W. 12 in respect of 60 cents and another extent of 9 cents. P.W. 12 Kuppammal executed Settlement Deed in respect of 1-57 cents in favour of P.W.I. The second accused questioned P.W. 12 as to why she executed the Settlement Deed. Accused 1 and 2 executed a Sale Deed in respect of the above 60 cents on 18.12.1987 in favour of the fourth accused. They also sold house site i.e 9 cents in favour of accused 13 and 15 under a sale deed. On 21.3.1987 at about 8.30 a.m. P.Ws 1 to 3 and 12 went to the land in a tractor and at that time, they saw the third accused ploughing lands of Kuppammal. Then, P.W. 12 asked the third accused as to how he could plough her land. At that time accused 2, 5 to 8 and 10 to 18 came there in a jeep. The accused were also having crowbars in their hands. The other accused i.e., 9 to 14,16 and 17 were also having crowbars and sticks. The first accused was having a knife. The first accused instigated the other accused to kill all the witnesses and at that time, P.W. 12 was pulled down." While the deceased Rajendran intervened, the second accused caught hold of his hands. The first accused stabbed on his head. At that time, the fourth accused beat P.W. 1 on his head with stick. The accused 11 and 13 also assaulted P.W. 3 with sticks. The second accused assaulted P.W.3 on cheek and the 12th accused beat on the chin of P.W.12. The third accused attempted to hit P.W.2 with the tractor and at that time, P.W.2 dragged the P.W. 12 and inspite of that, the tractor ran over the legs of P.W.12. The accused 2,5,8 and 18 threatened the witnesses with sticks. The first accused sustained injuries when he fell down. Thereafter, the accused 2 to 6 fled away from the scene.

When P.W.3 Was taking P.W. 12, he saw accused 8,9,12 and 15 demolishing the house of P.W.12. Accused 11, 13,14 and 17 demolished the mudwall and other accused dismantled the roof of the house. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint.

P. W.4, the Doctor gave treatment to first accused on 21.3.1987. On the same day at about 9.15 a.m., P. W.4 gave treatment to A-6 for the injuries sustained by him. The injured Rajendran was admitted in the hospital. P.W.4 saw injuries found on Rajendran. The above Doctor also treated the second accused for the injuries sustained by him. P.W.5 the Doctor attached to Ponneri hospital gave treatment to fifth accused at about 10.00 a.m. On 21.3.1987. On the same day, P.W.5 also gave treatment to A-18. The above doctor gave treatment to P.Ws 3 and 12 for the injuries sustained by mem, and issued wound certificates. On 21.3.1987, at about 11.40 a.m., P.W.6 gave treatment to the first accused.

After the injured Rajendran got treatment in Ponneri Hospital, he was taken to General Hospital, Chennai. P.W. 16 the Doctor gave treatment to him and admitted in the ward. But the said Rajendran died at about 11.10 a.m.

P.W. 19 the Sub-Inspector obtained statements from accused 1, and registered me case in Crime No.80 of 87. On me same day, P.W.I gave complaint under Ex.P-1 and me same was registered in Crime No. 81 of 87. Thereafter, P.W. 19 inspected the spot and prepared observation mahazar and sketch. The Inspector also conducted inquest. The Doctor conducted the post mortem and issued post mortem certificate.

P.W.20, the Inspector arrested accused 12 and 14 and recorded the confession statement given by them. In pursuance of me said statement M.O.7 the tractor was recovered from me house of A-14. M.Os 9 to 14 were recovered from me cattle shed of A-13. On 24.3.1987, the accused 13 and 15 were arrested. On 30.3.1987, me fifth accused was arrested in the hospital. The accused 2,3,6 to 10, 16 and 17 surrendered before the Court. The 18m accused was arrested on 13.4.1987. After completing the investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet on 3.6.1987.

The accused denied the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses during their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on the side of the accused, Exs. D-l to D-7 were marked and D.W.I was examined.

On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved on the said order of acquittal, P.W.3 has filed mis revision.

The following grounds are raised in this revision:-

The trial court erred in holding mat P.W. 12 has not produced the kist issued in her favour. The trial Court has held mat the will executed by Sreenivasalu in favour of P.W.12 was not produced. The trial Court failed to consider me evidence of Village Administrative officer that patta in respect of the land was transferred from the name of Sreenivasalu to Mani. The trial Court failed to note mat the land was sold by second accused without any authority. The Court has to decide only me factum of possession. The documents filed by the accused would not establish their defence. Further, me above documents are not sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to me accused. The lower Court failed to note that the date and year of injunction granted by me Civil Court is long after the finding of the trial Court mat the prosecution witnesses are the aggressors is erroneous. The trial Court failed to consider me evidence of witnesses particularly P.W.12. It is not necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the accused in every case.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for me respondents/accused contended mat the trial Court has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused and that the trial Court has given specific finding on each and every charge framed by the Court and that even assuming that the documents filed by the accused could not be relied upon, the evidence adduced by the prosecution are not sufficient and satisfactory to hold that accused have committed the offence. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that as the trial Court has acquitted the accused for more than one reason, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered within this revision.

The point for determination is whether the order of the trial Court is vitiated by manifest illegality or irregularity?

The trial Court has framed 16 charges. On analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution failed to establish any of the charges framed against the accused. It is not in dispute that P.W.s 1 to 3 and P.W.I2 and the accused are related. The main charge against the accused is that on 21.3.1987 at about 8.30 a.m. the accused trespassed into the land belonging to P.W.12 and that they assaulted the witnesses and that in the course of the transaction, Rajendran the brother of P. W. 1 was murdered. It is admitted that some of the accused also sustained injuries in the said transaction. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court grossly erred in giving finding in favour of the accused regarding the possession of the land.

Admittedly, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the land comprised in S.No. 121/3. The trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to make out a case u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that lands belonged to P.W.12, who got the land under document executed by Sreenivasalu Naidu. In the course of the discussion, the trial Court has held that the Will alleged to have been executed in fa- vour of P. W. 12 was not produced and that the kist receipts in the name of P.W.12 were not produced, and that the accused filed documents during 313 Cr.P.C examination to prove that Sreenivasalu Naidu under whom both P.W.12 and accused claim interest and right, executed Will in favour of accused 2 and 7 and that A-13 purchased 9 cents and that he filed suit in OS.55 of 87 and that he also obtained injunction in the said suit and that the fourth accused after obtaining sale filed suit against P.W.s 1 to 3 and P.W.12 and obtained injunction and that as fourth accused obtained injunction against P.Ws 1 to 3 and 12, it cannot be said that the accused trespassed into the land belonging to fourth accused. The said finding of the trial Court are assailed by the revision petitioner on several grounds.

The accused during, 313 Cr.P.C. examination has filed Will dated 5.5.1980. The fourth accused filed suit OS. 59 of 87 and the said suit was filed on 20.5.1987. The 13th accused also filed suit in O.S.No.58 of 87 against P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.W. 12. It is seen that both the suits were filed after the date of the occurrence. Therefore, it is clear that the accused did not obtain order of injunction with regard to the land involved in this case before the date of the occurrence. But the learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that de-hors the injunction order passed in the above suit, there is evidence to show that the fourth accused purchased the land before the date of occurrence. It is, however, clear that the injunction order was not passed before the date of the occurrence. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that on the date of the occurrence, it was P.W. 12 who was in possession of the land. There is no scrap of paper to prove that P.W.12 or P.Ws 1 to 3 were in possession of the land. On the other hand, the accused filed kist receipts Exs.D-1 and D-2 and patta extracts Exs.D-3 and D-4. The documents filed by the accused will show that the fourth accused purchased land prior to the date of the occurrence. P.W. 10 the Village Administrative Officer has vaguely stated that P.W. 12 was paying kisl. But in the same evidence, he has also stated that second accused has paid kisl. He has also admitted that only after the date of the occurrence, the patta was transferred in the name of the fourth accused. But there is no documentary'' evidence to show that patta stood in the name of P.W. 12 prior to the date of the occurrence.. Though P.W. 12 has stated that Sreenivasalu Naidu executed document in her favour, she has not filed the same. The said Srccnivasalu Naidu is the brother of P.W. 12. P.W.I claims to have obtained sale deed from P.W. 12 in respect of the land situate in Thiruvcnkatapuram. The land in S.No. 121/31 situate at Narasingapcttai village. P.W. 1 has also stated that the Will in favour of P.W. 12 was not produced to the investigation officer, since the police did not ask him to produce the Will. Though, he has stated that he was paying kist, no kist receipt was filed to prove the same. On the other hand, he has admitted that it is true that the second accused was paving kisl. He has stated that regarding 9 cents of land the kist receipts are in his house. But the above kist receipts were not produced during the trial. It is, thus, seen that even though civil suit was filed after the date of the occurrence, the accused produced certain documents to prove that the accused 1 and 2,4 and 13 were in possession of two items of the land. As already stated, it is for the prosecution to prove that P.W. 12 was in possession of the land and that the accused trespassed into the said land. Absolutely the prosecution has not let in any documentary evidence to prove that P.W. 12 was in possession of the land on :he date of the occurrence. The findings of the trial Court that P.W. 12 had no connection with the land is supported by the documentary evidence produced by the accused.

It is no doubt true that the Will produced by the accused are not admissible in evidence without proving the same under known process of law. It is significant to note that P.W. 1 has admitted that the fourth accused purchased land on 18.2.1987. If that is so, it is for the prosecution to show as to how P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.W. 12 were in possession of the land.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court should not have placed reliance on kist receipts and patta, since patta was transferred in the name of fourth accused, after the date of the occurrence. P.W. 10 the village Administrative Officer was treated hostile. The law is well settled that the evidence of hostile witness need not be discarded in loto. P.W. 10 has admitted that patta was transferred in the name of fourth, accused after the occurrence. But, it is not shown by the prosecution that patta was in the name of P.W. 12 on the date of the occurrence. Though, A-4 and A-13 have filed suit after the date of the occurrence, the documents to rove their possession were produced alongwith the plaint. In the absence of any documentary evidence in favour of P.W. 12. to prove the possession, the materials placed by the accused to show that even before the date of the occurrence, accused 1 and 2, 4 and 13 were in possession of the land appear to be acceptable. In the above circumstances, the finding of the Sessions Judge cannot be assailed on the ground that the finding is vitiated by manifest illegality.

Though, patta is not document of title, it cannot be disputed that the patta can be relied upon as evidence of possession. The payment of kist by the accused prior to the date of the occurrence will prima facie show that after Sreenivasalu Naidu, the accused was paying kist. Thus, looked at from any angle, it cannot be said that the land was in possession of P.W. 12 on the date of the occurrence.

The trial Court has discussed the evidence of witnesses with regard to other charges and has assigned reasons for acquitting the accused. Though, in the grounds of revision, the findings of the trial Court regarding appre- ciation of evidence are assailed, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the said findings. The trial Court has given reasons for disbelieving the case of conspiracy put forward by the prosecution. It is admitted that the accused also sustained injuries. The trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to explain as to how the fifth accused sustained injuries and that none of the witnesses have stated as to how the 6th accused sustained injuries. P.W.3 has stated that he does not know whether the second accused sustained injuries, and that the sixth accused did not sustain any injuries and that he does not remember whether accused 5 and 18 sustained injuries. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of witnesses with reference to injuries sustained by the accused and has come to the conclusion that the occurrence would not have taken place in the manner spoken to by prosecution witnesses.

It is, further, seen from Ex.P.-27 that the accused filed complaint against P.W.12, P.Ws 1 to 3 and others alleging that they trespassed into the land in his possession at about 8.30 a.m. on 21.3.1987. The above complaint was received at about 8.50 a.m. on the same day. On the other hand, the first information report relating to this case will show that P. W. 1 gave complaint to the police at about 9.15 a.m. on 21.3.1987. That apart, the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are also pointed out by the trial Court for disbelieving their evidence. On a careful reading of the findings of the trial Court, I am not inclined to accept the case of the revision petitioner that the findings are vitiated by grave infirmities.

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon number of decisions to show that only in exceptional cases, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by a private complainant against the order of acquittal Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and Others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and Another, In Bansi Lal and Others Vs. Laxman Singh, , it is held thus:-

It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. Even in an appeal the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope.

In Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh and Another, it is clearly observed that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Sessions or if even there is misappreciation of evidence.

In the latest decision reported in Kaptan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, the Supreme Court observed that the Revisional power of High Court while sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a-manifest illegality in the judgment or there is grave miscarriage of justice. The principles laid down in the above decision, will clearly show that in the revision against the order of acquittal, the revision Court has to exercise its power only under exceptional cases. As already stated, the trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in a proper perspective and has come to the conclusion that the charges were not proved Even admitting that the trial Court has given wrong finding regarding the filing of the suit and obtaining the order of injunction, the said finding cannot be said to be perverse.

Thus, looked at from any angle, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered in this revision. I hold that there are no merits in the revision.

In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed.