AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Suri Appa Rao, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition is filed u/s 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th July 2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2000 on the file of the learned Ad Hoc District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Virajpet.
The relevant facts leading to this revision petition are as follows:
PW-1 - Suresh S. Hegde, RFO, Ponnampet he received credible information on 13.09.1998 that one Ajjimada Chittiappa that he stored some beeti logs in his house without permission and licence. On 13.09.1998 immediately he proceeded along with his staff to the house of Chittiappa and when they were preparing the mahazar, the revisional Petitioners obstructed their work and threatened them not to register case against Chittiappa. Therefore, PW-1 the RFO lodged a complaint before the Gonicoppa Police and the same was transferred to Sri mangala Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srimangala Police registered a case, conducted spot mahazar, collected Ex. P1 to P3 wound certificates of P Ws 2 to 4 and after recording the statement he filed the charge sheet against the revisional pecitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 332 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet.
The prosecution examined P Ws 1 to 11 and got marked Ex. P1 to P10 and M Os 1 to 3 and during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses the defence got marked Ex. D1 to D5.
Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Virajpet found the revisional Petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 332 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced all of them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for these offences.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them, the revisional Petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 49/2000 on the file of the Ad Hoc District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Virajpet, thereby the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence of imprisonment for the offence u/s 341 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced the revisional Petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and confirmed the punishment of three months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 332 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Virajpet, the revisional Petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against them.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant Sri. G.S. Bajaj and Sri P.M. Nawaj, learned Addl. SPP.
I have gone through the judgments of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The point that arise for consideration is that:
Whether the prosecution has established the charges u/s 341 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 332 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. against the revisional Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and there are any ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2000 ?
It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.09.1998 on credible information PW-1, the RFO of Ponnampet along with his Staff inspected the house of one Ajjimada Chittiappa and when they were preparing the mahazar, the revisional Petitioners obstructed them from discharging their duty and assaulted them with hands. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against accused 1 to 3 for assaulting C Ws 2 to 4 who are working under PW-1 who were sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer - PW-6 who examined them and he found abrasion and nail scratches on the person of P Ws 2 to 4.
The learned Counsel for the revisional Petitioners submitted that PW-2 to PW-4 in their evidence stated that they were prevented by the accused from moving further and they were confined in a room. After some time at the intervention of the villagers they were released. It is further submitted that PW-1 in the cross-examination he has admitted that no case is registered against the Ajjimada Chittiappa for any of the forest offence. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the revisional Petitioner that the evidence of P Ws 1 to 4 is not consistent and corroborated in all the material particulars. PW-7 who is the only independent witness examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court are not justified in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences.
Learned Additional S.P.P. submitted that the accused prevented the Forest Officials in discharging their duty and they locked the main door of the gate of Chittiappa''s house and thereby prevented P Ws 1 to 4 from coming out of the house of Chittiappa after inspection of the house. The fact that PW-1 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that no Forest offence was registered against Chittiappa clearly indicates that the revisional Petitioners must have prevented the forest Officials from discharging their duty on the ground that, Chittiappa has not committed any forest offence. It is further submitted that the revisional Petitioners threatened P Ws 2 to 4 not to enter into the house as no offence has been committed under the provisions of the Forest Act. However, the evidence of P Ws 1 to 4 clearly shows that the revisional Petitioners prevented them from discharging their official duty and they locked the main gate of the house of Chittiappa. Therefore, prevented P Ws 2 to 4 from moving further after completion of their official work. Admittedly, the officials of Forest Department has got every right to inspect every premises when they got credible information relating to forest offences. Merely because Chittiappa has not committed any forest offence, the revisional Petitioners cannot prevent P Ws 1 to 4 from discharging their duty.
The learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence of imprisonment for the offence u/s 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC and awarded to pay fine of Rs. 500/- only each. The learned Counsel for the revisional Petitioners further submits that a lenient view may be taken as the Petitioners prevented the officials of Forest Department as Chittiappa has not committed any forest offence. When the incident took place at the house of Chittiappa he cannot expect that any independent evidence other than the evidence of P Ws 1 to 4 who have admittedly no animosity to file a false case against the revisional Petitioners. The evidence of P Ws 1 to 4 clearly shows that the Petitioners assaulted P Ws 2 to 4 when they tried to enter into the house of Chittiappa for inspecting the house. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the offence under Sections 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the revisional Petitioners. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and First Appellate Court.
So far as the sentence for imposed for the offence u/s 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC the learned Advocate for the revisional Petitioners submitted that the revisional Petitioners were in jail for 14 days during investigation and alter judgment of the Sessions Judge was passed. Considering the nature of offence and in view of the fact that no case is registered against Chittiappa under Forest Act there must have been some tussle between the revisional Petitioners and P Ws 1 to 4 when they tried to enter into the house of Chittiappa. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to pay fine for the offence under Sections 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC. While confirming the sentence of payment offline of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s 341 r/w Section 34 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is set aside for the offence u/s 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Instead the revisional Petitioners are hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence u/s 332 r/w Section 34 of IPC within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. In default of payment, the Petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
With the above modifications, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
Registry is directed to send the records to the trial Court with a direction to implement the aforesaid order passed by this Court.